I will try to locate where I did read that CBS requires it's affiliates to run full, or minimum required bit rates.. this is why very few CBS stations multicast....

Actually I was not debating crap quality here but the fact that there is very little difference between the crap from D* or E* images.

Hey HDTVFanAtic,
:p :p :p :p :p :p

Did you go search my posts to find the slightest contradiction........... And I do have a lot of free time as I sell very effectively when I'm in work mode thus giving me PLENTY of down time to come in here and rag on your a$$ :rolleyes:


Anyway Happy Holidays to all....If that offends you too bad.......

Used car salesman preying on the uninformed????

Actually, I did not need to search as I had posted in that thread and yesterday I said, hmmm.....here's a D* sub that gets it when you posted. Today you do a 180 forgetting what you said yesterday and I think "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".

Used car salesman preying on the uninformed????

Actually, I did not need to search as I had posted in that thread and yesterday I said, hmmm.....here's a D* sub that gets it when you posted. Today you do a 180 forgetting what you said yesterday and I think "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".

Actually I Design & sell Custom Commercial & Residential Awnings. Like these. Awnings (http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l289/apexmi/Awnings/)

I do get the lack of quality issues. It was more of a D* vs E* opinion here and I still say I don't see much of a difference with either. I like quality too but these are still the best choices currently available to most of us.

Have a good one...

Bob

Used car salesman preying on the uninformed????

I had to assist in the decision to get rid of one of our reps a couple years ago he was charging little old ladies double our list prices.... $ 850 for products that should be $300-$400 as an example. I can't stand dishonest salesmen it gives us all the Used car stigma.....

Actually I Design & sell Custom Commercial & Residential Awnings. Like these. Awnings (http://s99.photobucket.com/albums/l289/apexmi/Awnings/)


Damn...I was close....not used car salesman....a door to door salesman selling to the elderly.

Damn...I was close....not used car salesman....a door to door salesman selling to the elderly.


I'll pass on the door to door..... been there done that no thanks........haven't had to straight up cold call in a long time now if your storefront has a shabby lookin awning I may come your way to sign ya up for a replacement... :D

.... this is why very few CBS stations multicast....4 out of the 5 OTA CBS affiliates I am able to receive multicast.

I didn't read through all 9 pages but this reminds me of some past discussions about cable modems vs. DSL. At the time all I had available to me was dial up going through a repeater that filtered out all the v90 compression. The best I could do was 1200 bps.

For me, and a lot of other people, the only choice for CBS is SD D* or analog OTA SD. Both are equally bad.

To me, a digital picture void of macroblocking and all the assorted noise and compression artifacts would be a major improvement at any resolution.

To me, a digital picture void of macroblocking and all the assorted noise and compression artifacts would be a major improvement at any resolution.

Some MPEG4 movies are being shown in Europe now with no artifacts and no macroblocking. Hard to believe they are having this PQ while we, the first adopter get f******.

Some MPEG4 movies are being shown in Europe now with no artifacts and no macroblocking. Hard to believe they are having this PQ while we, the first adopter get f******.

no joke man.

I guess they're using DVB out there, and that allows for h.264, which is a lot more efficient compared to mpeg-2. I would love to see an h.264 1080i flick at 15 mbps.

uhh the links to all the pictures are dead and directv is soposed to have more salites ( maybe 2 more?) by next year and expecting to have 150 hd channels!!! :eek: and also theirs been rumors that directv wants to merge with echo star ( the father of dish) . as far as the 2 satlite and the merge im not 100 % sure HOWEVER on the 150 hd channels i AM :D i have a sample or a paper from directv themselvs

uhh the links to all the pictures are dead and directv is soposed to have more salites ( maybe 2 more?) by next year and expecting to have 150 hd channels!!! :eek: and also theirs been rumors that directv wants to merge with echo star ( the father of dish) . as far as the 2 satlite and the merge im not 100 % sure HOWEVER on the 150 hd channels i AM :D i have a sample or a paper from directv themselvs

The links are down because my imagehosting site is updating their servers. More capacity and bandwidth,etc.

directv is soposed to have more salites ( maybe 2 more?) by next year and expecting to have 150 hd channels!!!

no, they're going to have the CAPACITY to broadcast 150 HD channels. of course, when you compress the snot out of it, that's not as big a deal as it sounds. now, that they have the capacity to broadcast 150 HD channels is irrelevant, as there are not 150 HD channels in existence. they could say 1000 HD channels and it still wouldn't change anything, that many don't exist.

no joke man.

I guess they're using DVB out there, and that allows for h.264, which is a lot more efficient compared to mpeg-2. I would love to see an h.264 1080i flick at 15 mbps.


Then get E* they have Starz HD and soon will be switching all the channels. DVB-S2 is the only one that allows h.264 and that is exactly what D* uses on their h.264.

Some MPEG4 movies are being shown in Europe now with no artifacts and no macroblocking. Hard to believe they are having this PQ while we, the first adopter get f******.

That is because they have few channels only. Plus they only have first generation h.264 encoders that suck and require as much bandwith as Mpeg2. E* just installed second generation h.264 on Starz HD and it looks great.

please fix the pictures so we can see compare shots

Pictures will go up next several days. Just takes a while.

Robots

D* 6.10 gb AVB 9.00 Mbps
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8673/robotsd000004ig0.png
E* 6.73 gb AVB 10.00 Mbps
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/900/robotse000004as8.png

D*
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Lite/Robots%20D.0000%20%2802%29.png
E*
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Full%20HD/Robots%20E.0000%20%2802%29.png

D*
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1549/robotsd0000ga2.png
E*
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9287/robotse0000ys6.png

The file hosting site went kaput. I lost almost every comparison screenshots I uploaded to them.

Give me feedback if these new hosting site is fast enough or giving you troubles.

The above shots loaded much, much faster than the last one used. Instantaneous in fact.

The file hosting site went kaput. I lost almost every comparison screenshots I uploaded to them.

Give me feedback if these new hosting site is fast enough or giving you troubles.
The shots from the imageshack linksloaded up really fast. The uploadingit links sat endlessly while loading.

upladingit worked fine for me just now.

For comparison, I found the same frame from my HD cable:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c-th.jpg
(http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c.png)

Here's an unresized 256x256 PNG crop from each of the sources...

Cable:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c256.png

D*:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-d256.png

E*:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-e256.png

Macroblocking D* is much, much worse.

The shots from the imageshack linksloaded up really fast. The uploadingit links sat endlessly while loading.

It looks like uploadingit is not fast enough. I will stick with imageshack for now (until we see the frogs) and use uploadingit or some others like it for bigger files.

Then get E* they have Starz HD and soon will be switching all the channels. DVB-S2 is the only one that allows h.264 and that is exactly what D* uses on their h.264.

Can I get some of what you are smoking?

Macroblocking D* is much, much worse.
I'll grant you that the macroblocking on D* is more visible, but it looks like the E* picture has a major amount of softening going on which seems to hide it more.

The cable pic blows them both away.

The cable pic blows them both away.
This is not surprising in the least to us who have D* and then have gone to others' homes where cable systems are passing through exactly what they receive.

For comparison, I found the same frame from my HD cable:
http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c-th.jpg
(http://crtforum.com/img/robots-c.png)



So who is your cable provider?

So who is your cable provider?It was Adelphia when I recorded "Robots". They were bought by Comcast and switched last month.

HD DVR stayed the same... Motorola 6412.

i have a question for all of you very appreciated experts. i have a 42 inch dlp with a 1280x720 resolution. i have noticed that some programs on my d*, especially hdnet movies channel, look horrible. ok they are better than SD, but it looks so much better on my sisters 50inch dlp that is more than 2 years old, and she has CABLE!!! my question is, if i switched from D* to E* would i see a difference in the HD quality? my buddies got a E*and a dlp 1920x1080p and it looks incredible. could mine improve any?

almost ready to jump ship to fios. i know it's just been recently available, but would anyone have any comparo of that vs. d* or e*?

i have a question for all of you very appreciated experts. i have a 42 inch dlp with a 1280x720 resolution. i have noticed that some programs on my d*, especially hdnet movies channel, look horrible. ok they are better than SD, but it looks so much better on my sisters 50inch dlp that is more than 2 years old, and she has CABLE!!! my question is, if i switched from D* to E* would i see a difference in the HD quality? my buddies got a E*and a dlp 1920x1080p and it looks incredible. could mine improve any?

Oh yes! Mark my words. BUT ever since E* went HD Lite on HDNM (1440x1080i) the difference in PQ is less now. When E* was in full HD on these channel its PQ advantage is very obvious. You still get full HD 1920x1080i on E* from HBO,SHOW,UHD,DSHD,TNTHD and PPVHD to NONE on D*. Most cable companies still have HDNM in full HD so have an option to choose this if you want to.

Again I'm not disparaging D* subscribers because I also use them. Mainly because of the hardware invested and FOOZball. If I'm going all out for PQ on my latest and greatest HD sets, I want programming thats going utilize the maximum resolution. Only cable, FIOS and some channels of E* can give it to me.

almost ready to jump ship to fios. i know it's just been recently available, but would anyone have any comparo of that vs. d* or e*?

FIOS have an edge in PQ compared to SAT. Unfortunately no one can't cap the stream from STBs yet.

Robots

D* 6.10 gb AVB 9.00 Mbps
E* 6.73 gb AVB 10.00 Mbps


Not knowing the movie - what is the timing into the movie of these 2 scenes.

Oh yes! Mark my words. BUT ever since E* went HD Lite on HDNM (1440x1080i) the difference in PQ is less now. When E* was in full HD on these channel its PQ advantage is very obvious. You still get full HD 1920x1080i on E* from HBO,SHOW,UHD,DSHD,TNTHD and PPVHD to NONE on D*. Most cable companies still have HDNM in full HD so have an option to choose this if you want to.


Unfortunately most cable companies have cut the bandwidth of HDNET Movies and really killed it on regular HDNET.

Are you using 110W or 148W for HBO and SHO on E*?

I have had Dave HD, charter cable HD and now dish network Hd. I am very impressed so far with dish, the picture quality is better than what I was getting on my moxi HD receiver through charter cable and way better than when I had Directv. I have a vip 622 receiver.

Not knowing the movie - what is the timing into the movie of these 2 scenes.I'm out of town and don't have the file with me, but IIRC, it's about 75% into the movie...

I'm not too familiar with the movie either, but I recall it was a big junkyard battle scene... the "Aunt Fanny" robot says "Say hello to my dimpled friend", then it cuts to a scene where the red robot (with Robin William's voice) goes into a dance number to a Britney Spears song.

Unfortunately most cable companies have cut the bandwidth of HDNET Movies and really killed it on regular HDNET.

Are you using 110W or 148W for HBO and SHO on E*?

110W/119W

Not knowing the movie - what is the timing into the movie of these 2 scenes.

Approx 1:16:00

ok...let me grab it from C Band.

FWIW, 148W is passing HBO-HD untouched from C Band.

I would be interested in hearing from D* or E* viewers with video processing boxes with macroblock and mosquito noise reduction systems on how much of a difference this makes to their picture quality, particularly on large RPTVs or front projectors.

Xylon and Clarence.

What did MPEG2REPAIR report the video bitrate of your Robots cap as?

This is really throwing some twists in here.

Will have to dig through my hard drives. Couple of days.

Will have to dig through my hard drives. Couple of days.

It's very interesting as the detail and gamma from C Band via R5000HD looks worse than Clarence's cable cap - which is really bizarre.

The Gamma is off compared to any of the other 3.

This should be very helpful information for the 5% or so of people who actually have TV's that can do 1920x1080.

And of those, the .5% that give a shizz.

And of those, the .5% that give a shizz.

Yes, all 36,000 that have viewed this thread, making it the 14th most viewed thread on AVSForum HDTV Programming.

So much for your guesses.

Care to try again?

Xylon and Clarence.

What did MPEG2REPAIR report the video bitrate of your Robots cap as?

This is really throwing some twists in here.

Robots D*

Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 6.10 GB, Play Time: 01h:29m:57s
1280 x 1088, 29.97 fps (24.68 fps Telecine), 65.00 Mbps (9.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 44.60 KB/Frame, 0.26 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 384 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -28.0 dB, Center Mix Level: -3.0 dB, Surround Mix Level: -3.0 dB
0 of 133205 video frames found with errors.
1 of 168674 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

End of Log


Robots E*

Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 6.73 GB, Play Time: 01h:30m:00s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.89 fps Telecine), 18.00 Mbps (10.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 49.16 KB/Frame, 0.19 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 384 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -27.0 dB, Center Mix Level: -3.0 dB, Surround Mix Level: -3.0 dB
0 of 134438 video frames found with errors.
0 of 168778 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

End of Log

Interesting

Robots off E* 148W and C Band was 10.45, so not that much higher than what you got off 110W.

I am sure that Clarence's Cable probably came it at 10.45 as well.

It also shows the difference in just 1 Mbps between E* and D*, even when D* is using 1280x1080i HD-LITE.

That is even more telling that everyone should scroll back up and look at the D* and E* cap - and see what 1 single Mbps of bitrate did to the difference - and then what Clarence was able to get out of it with just 1/2 Mps of bitrate more.

To me this is the best example posted of how little it takes to make a BIG difference.

Remember, we are talking just 15% difference from D*'s lousy picture to Clarence's much more acceptable picture.

Thanks for posting!

Every video information transmitted to our STB counts in every way and F***** D* still contend that their HD is in " . . . . . . . GLORIOUS 1080i after all the downrezzing and bit starving!

I cringe everytime those D* commercials shows up.

And of those, the .5% that give a shizz.

Then . . . . count yourself lucky.

Robots HD cable:
File Size Processed: 7.09 GB, Play Time: 01h:30m:42s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.93 fps Telecine), 25.00 Mbps (10.46 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 51.23 KB/Frame, 0.20 Bits/Pixel.

Robots E*:
File Size Processed: 6.73 GB, Play Time: 01h:30m:00s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.89 fps Telecine), 18.00 Mbps (10.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 49.16 KB/Frame, 0.19 Bits/Pixel.

Robots D*:
File Size Processed: 6.10 GB, Play Time: 01h:29m:57s
1280 x 1088, 29.97 fps (24.68 fps Telecine), 65.00 Mbps (9.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 44.60 KB/Frame, 0.26 Bits/Pixel.

Yes, all 36,000 that have viewed this thread, making it the 14th most viewed thread on AVSForum HDTV Programming.

So much for your guesses.

Care to try again?

lol 36,000 VIEWS.

That's hard. Some people forget that this forum is not the sole arbiter for public opinion.

If you don't give a "shizz" about quantitative and qualitative picture quality comparisons, just ignore this thread.

Even for anyone without a 1080P display device, the differences between the providers is still very visible.

In your opinion, which HD provider has the best quality? Or don't you give a "shizz"?

I just love these threads that discuss the same thing over, and over, and over...

Begging to be closed.

I just love these threads that discuss the same thing over, and over, and over...



and hilariously you were stupid enough to click back in and read it. :rolleyes:

lol 36,000 VIEWS.

That's hard. Some people forget that this forum is not the sole arbiter for public opinion.


People don't click on threads that don't click on threads to waste time reading on things they have absolutely no interest in.

No one except you said anything about which way the public opinion came down on it.

And just because 5 or so threads have newbies posting which has better quality HD, it seems you are the only one in the thread that has no interest in it.

Nevermind.

I just looked at your other posts and realized that you never have anything positive or insightful to contribute:
Posts by schticker (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?do=finduser&userid=7594145)

You just enjoy trolling with cynical opposition on anything and everything.

No, I enjoy countering cynics that work tirelessly to make this industry as clinical and unenjoyable as humanly possible. That is my contribution.

Anyone who reads my posts quickly sees that.

and hilariously you were stupid enough to click back in and read it. :rolleyes:

I knew what this was about before I clicked on it, to be sure.

I knew what this was about before I clicked on it, to be sure.

And since you are responding to posts, you clearly had to read them. :rolleyes:

And since you are responding to posts, you clearly had to read them. :rolleyes:

Morbid curiosity. ;)

No, I enjoy countering cynics that work tirelessly to make this industry as clinical and unenjoyable as humanly possible. That is my contribution.

Anyone who reads my posts quickly sees that.


Role reversal......you are the cynic here.

The page views show and rank on AVS show that people do care.

Clearly you are the one that clicked here that doesn't.

Role reversal......you are the cynic here.

The page views show and rank on AVS show that people do care.

Clearly you are the one that clicked here that doesn't.

As long as you decree it so I suppose :rolleyes:

People like controversy and juicy threads.

And I do care--but I care equally about helping to prevent internet gossip and hysteria overflowing, causing a bigger issue than the issue itself.

You seem to care more for merely mocking people (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?do=finduser&userid=7594145) for questioning the quality and comparative value of D* (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9396148&&#post9396148), 481P "HD" (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9357503&&#post9357503), Bose (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9186498&&#post9186498), DLP rainbows (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9442049&&#post9442049), and Monster (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8996548&&#post8996548) cable.

You should consider a career in marketing (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9794796&&#post9794796)... Capitalize on consumers who will buy into your professional (url=http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9372032&&#post9372032) elegantly-presented personal preference, and protect them from the "hysteria" from poorly-dressed, opinionated hobbyists who post substantiated, quantitative analyses in a science forum.

Yet if this forum provides quantified information about the broadcast quality from various providers, you "don't give a shizz"?

The typical marketer.

He says he likes the sound of Rotel more than Mark Levinson - which is comical.

This just proves he can't see - as well as can't hear.

Let's see, he says that anything above 480 can be sold as HD and that there is no difference that people should care about in the caps in this thread - beginning to see a trend - makes you begin to wonder who exactly he is a shill for, doesn't it?

I honestly think that Directv's hd feed on most channels, there are exceptions, looks just as good as OTA, or dish or cable. I know people will say, well you cant see, or your tv isnt calibrated, but I have 20/20 and my samsung plasma has been calibrated by a pro.
Just my 2 cents, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i love reading this stuff, lol

I honestly think that Directv's hd feed on most channels, there are exceptions, looks just as good as OTA, or dish or cable. I know people will say, well you cant see, or your tv isnt calibrated, but I have 20/20 and my samsung plasma has been calibrated by a pro.
Just my 2 cents, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i love reading this stuff, lol

and we love n00bs who think just like a teenager which has had their first orgasm and think they know everything about sex.

As shown by the pictures above, your 20/20 eyesight and calibrated tv doesn't translate to the higher brain functions.

I honestly think that Directv's hd feed on most channels, there are exceptions, looks just as good as OTA, or dish or cable. I know people will say, well you cant see, or your tv isnt calibrated, but I have 20/20 and my samsung plasma has been calibrated by a pro.
Just my 2 cents, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and i love reading this stuff, lol

Sorry bud... the numbers don't lie. Just plain facts.

I tend to agree with msmith here. I think some people hear the "numbers" then mentally think the they see the picture is worse.

I tend to agree with msmith here. I think some people hear the "numbers" then mentally think the they see the picture is worse.

I don't have E* or D*, only OTA HD. I'd have to say D* is some of the worst HD and SD picture quality out of both. I've seen a D* HD setup and Cox Cable HD setup on the same TV. There's no contest there...everyone could tell the difference and kept giving their nod toward Cox cable.

and we love n00bs who think just like a teenager which has had their first orgasm and think they know everything about sex.

As shown by the pictures above, your 20/20 eyesight and calibrated tv doesn't translate to the higher brain functions.


...and I love people who jump to generalizations!

1) How big a TV is this guy watching things on?
2) Mostly MPEG 4 or 2?


etc etc etc... Talk about pot and kettle with "know everything"

I don't have E* or D*, only OTA HD. I'd have to say D* is some of the worst HD and SD picture quality out of both.

Who does these two sentance go together?

]1) How big a TV is this guy watching things on?
2) Mostly MPEG 4 or 2?
These are real important points. For example, when I watch D* HD on my 57" set at normal viewing distance of roughly 10 ft., I almost get sick at the PQ. When I move back to about 27 ft. in my great room, it's amazing the PQ seems pretty good including SD :) :)

I am watching on a 42" samsung, and the majority of it is as of right now mpeg-2.

Just curious, why do people in here when they see someone who doesnt agree with the opinion they have feel the need to insult.
If hd-lite isnt cutting it for you, thats fine, im simply saying that with a properly calibrated set, it looks stunning.
Some people just seem to be hung up on the numbers and then decide, hey this rez isnt high enough, it sucks, regardless of what it actually looks like.

Sorry bud... the numbers don't lie. Just plain facts.


Numbers are just that, numbers. there are so many other factors that go into PQ.

Has anyone checked the bitrate for The Empire Strikes Back on HBO-HD? I don't know if it was "HD lite" or not, but it's the single best HD presentation I've seen on the channel yet and I've had HBO-HD for over a year now. It actually looked as good or better than most of the HD-DVDs in my collection. :cool:

Who does these two sentance go together?

I'm not sure I understand the broken english and the word sentance?

I don't have E* or D*, only OTA HD. I'd have to say D* is some of the worst HD and SD picture quality out of both. I've seen a D* HD setup and Cox Cable HD setup on the same TV. There's no contest there...everyone could tell the difference and kept giving their nod toward Cox cable.


As far as the difference between E* and D* hd, my friend has E* on a 55"hitachi, and mine looks quite a bit better actually.
I also have both E* and D* but only have the HD on D*. the SD picture quality on both is comperable though.

I'm not sure I understand the broken english and the word sentance?

Your right..strike one, let me try again.

How does those two sentences go together? "i.e. I don't have D* or E* but D* is much worse.

Has anyone been able to get screencaps from HD DVD's or Bluray disks yet? I have been curious to see how they handle demanding scenes (heavy movement, smoke, water, fast scene changes, harsh lighting). Its a shame to see what Satellite and most cable companies have done to HD programming. Once the prices start to go down and one of the formats becomes the "standard" I will seriously consider buying the new player and disks.

Has anyone been able to get screencaps from HD DVD's or Bluray disks yet? I have been curious to see how they handle demanding scenes (heavy movement, smoke, water, fast scene changes, harsh lighting). Its a shame to see what Satellite and most cable companies have done to HD programming. Once the prices start to go down and one of the formats becomes the "standard" I will seriously consider buying the new player and disks.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102

I have more pix coming up next few days.

Just curious, why do people in here when they see someone who doesnt agree with the opinion they have feel the need to insult.
If hd-lite isnt cutting it for you, thats fine, im simply saying that with a properly calibrated set, it looks stunning.
Many of us have seen over the last several years a tremendous degradation in the HD PQ of D*. This is such a common, widespread, and often reported complaint on this board that to me it's not opinion but fact.

Yours is a minority opinion (fact?) and it's not helped by being fairly new and going really far in our estimation by labelling D* HD "as good as OTA" and even "stunning." This is seen as almost an in-your-face insult to us fanatics who've been ranting about HD Lite for quite some time.

So being fanatical about HD, it's difficult to control ourselves over such posts, especially since for whatever the reason we're stuck with D*. But you're absolutely right! We should resist with all our might the inclination to go ballistic and hurl epithets when someone comes out strongly to the defense of one of our most hated things in tv: HD Lite. We must strive for more civility here and show respect for others. I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102

I have more pix coming up next few days.

Cool. Been wondering if capping from HD DVD's or Bluray disks was possible for a long time. Thanks.

Has anyone been able to get screencaps from HD DVD's or Bluray disks yet? I have been curious to see how they handle demanding scenes (heavy movement, smoke, water, fast scene changes, harsh lighting). Its a shame to see what Satellite and most cable companies have done to HD programming. Once the prices start to go down and one of the formats becomes the "standard" I will seriously consider buying the new player and disks.
I don't see one format becoming 'standard" this time around. This isn't like the Beta vs VHS thing where it's virtually impossible to make a player that can handle both. I think this time around, both formats will persist, but all future players and recorders will handle both. At this point, there's little reason to continue to make standalone players other than for the benefit of those that only want one or the other for a smaller price. Honestly, though, I would imagine the single format drives in the PS3 and X-Box will soon be considered dinosaurs.

I don't see one format becoming 'standard" this time around. This isn't like the Beta vs VHS thing where it's virtually impossible to make a player that can handle both. I think this time around, both formats will persist, but all future players and recorders will handle both. At this point, there's little reason to continue to make standalone players other than for the benefit of those that only want one or the other for a smaller price. Honestly, though, I would imagine the single format drives in the PS3 and X-Box will soon be considered dinosaurs.

Yeah. I tend to agree with everything you said there except one thing. Xbox360 has an external HD DVD add on. Not an internal one like the PS3. So upgrading shouldn't be such a problem if Microsoft decides to support Bluray also. Thankfully I havent purchased either yet.

It appears that duel players are already being made. Hopefully the prices will come down soon. I just feel bad for the average person. Some people don't even know how to tell which version of a DVD they are buying (widescreen or fullscreen). I can just imagine the confusion when Nanna tries to go out and buy little Timmy his favorite movie and having to deal with 2-4 different disks for the same film.

Many of us have seen over the last several years a tremendous degradation in the HD PQ of D*. This is such a common, widespread, and often reported complaint on this board that to me it's not opinion but fact.

Yours is a minority opinion (fact?) and it's not helped by being fairly new and going really far in our estimation by labelling D* HD "as good as OTA" and even "stunning." This is seen as almost an in-your-face insult to us fanatics who've been ranting about HD Lite for quite some time.

So being fanatical about HD, it's difficult to control ourselves over such posts, especially since for whatever the reason we're stuck with D*. But you're absolutely right! We should resist with all our might the inclination to go ballistic and hurl epithets when someone comes out strongly to the defense of one of our most hated things in tv: HD Lite. We must strive for more civility here and show respect for others. I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end!

Well I appreciate your opinion and your comment.

And while I still stand by my statement that in my situation and setup, D* HD looks as good as OTA in most cases(there are instances on certain channels where it sucks, but I would think thats true of most providers) I also understand that it is not like that for everyone.

Again, thanks for the civil discusion!

This should be very helpful information for the 5% or so of people who actually have TV's that can do 1920x1080. And of those, most of those dont pump out 60FPS at 1920x1080, so get ready for a lil motion sickness on those pans.

My TV does 1366x768, so i'll just use the first one as reference, regardless of who i subscribe to.
My god is that your flash or is that the bright light at the pearly gates.

So has anyone been able to record or make screencaps of Verizon's FIOS HD? I have heard some good things and was curious to see how the screenshots looked.

So has anyone been able to record or make screencaps of Verizon's FIOS HD? I have heard some good things and was curious to see how the screenshots looked.

None so far.

BTW let me know if its possible to do this.

jmj713

Dude what happened? LOL, where did you go? I know how it feels, you are stuck with some kind of commitment or you like the Sunday Ticket and you want so badly to convince yourself that it is OK, that there is not much of a difference. But I chose quality over quantity and have FiOS now.

The sad thing is that E* is only better compared to D*. I wonder what they will do when D* has more of those HD-Lite channels and E* has to play catch up, maybe they will do the same thing.

I had fios here in Tampa but got rid of it b/c I was getting macro-blocking effects when watching high motion/light events. I told Fios that if they could not tell me my avg bit rate then I was going to cancel. I canceled. I have a 92" HD projector and it just didn't pay to have if all I was going to see in high intensity scenes was a low grade mpg movie!

Buyer beware!

I had fios here in Tampa but got rid of it b/c I was getting macro-blocking effects when watching high motion/light events. I told Fios that if they could not tell me my avg bit rate then I was going to cancel. I canceled. I have a 92" HD projector and it just didn't pay to have if all I was going to see in high intensity scenes was a low grade mpg movie!

Buyer beware!

FIOS should show less macroblocking compared to low bitrate satellite providers and even some cable companies.

We can bitch and moan but its too late for us HD enthusiasts to ever expect high quality, high bitrate broadcasts here in America.

In Europe its a totally different story.

...its too late for us HD enthusiasts to ever expect high quality, high bitrate broadcasts here in America.
I hope it's not! There are at least a few of us HD enthusiasts out here and, as I posted in a local thread, our day's coming, albeit it may be years down the road.

To support my contention that true HD quality will someday win out, this evening I'm watching the Mets/Yankees HD game on D* ESPN-HD. My wife, who doesn't remotely begin to share my interest in HD and if I'm not careful will watch programs in SD even when she knows they're available in HD, shouts out while reading a book: "This game isn't in HD, the fans' faces are blurred!"

I didn't even bother to go into my HD Lite spiel and just continued watching the game while muttering under my breath, "I know what you mean!"

I hope it's not! There are at least a few of us HD enthusiasts out here and, as I posted in a local thread, our day's coming, albeit it may be years down the road.

To support my contention that true HD quality will someday win out, this evening I'm watching the Mets/Yankees HD game on D* ESPN-HD. My wife, who doesn't remotely begin to share my interest in HD and if I'm not careful will watch programs in SD even when she knows they're available in HD, shouts out while reading a book: "This game isn't in HD, the fans' faces are blurred!"

I didn't even bother to go into my HD Lite spiel and just continued watching the game while muttering under my breath, "I know what you mean!"


I know ill get flamed for this, but my guests reaction to the same game was total opposite. Everyone thought it looked great.

Are there any other options in your area? Or is cable just as bad?

I know ill get flamed for this, but my guests reaction to the same game was total opposite. Everyone thought it looked great.
If one has guests over and they say this D* HD telecast looks great, then if one fully agrees, one has to feel pretty satisfied. If that's the case, I'd ignore the visual exhibits earlier in this thread, let the true HD fanatics wallow in our rantings, and I'd enjoy a lot of HD sports on D* looming ahead, not ever looking back!

But I have to ask -- remaining civil and not flaming anyone -- it looks great compared to what? Compared to D*'s telecast of the same game on non-HD Channel 206? If that's the case, then I totally agree.

I just know that D*'s HD telecasts picked up in my house aren't nearly as good PQ-wise as for example TW Cable in the Albany, NY system or Comcast in the Staunton, Virginia system. And it's not my equipment because fairly often in the past and very very very infrequently today I'll get OTA HD reception verging on having the WOW factor.

Also, when an NFL HD game is on my DNS Channel 80 or 88 and I can also pick up the same game OTA even on a multicasting station, the latter is always superior in PQ.
Are there any other options in your area? Or is cable just as bad?
Yes, Comcast Cable is available and the aforementioned HD PQ is really good -- at least in Staunton 10 miles away. My hesitancy is it used to be -- as once again I shake uncontrollably in typing this -- it used to be up until a few months ago, gasp, Adelphia. In addition, I'm out in the country and I don't know about these 15 year old underground cable trunk lines.

Lastly, I'm an NFL nut and between OTA and D* DNS -- not even ever having ST -- I can often see upwards of 6 games a Sunday total in HD and often 8 or 9 overall. So I'm waiting for MPEG-4 and if D* HD PQ doesn't substantially improve, I'm tempted to zap D* and return to cable. No sense in ranting about HD Lite for the rest of my life in order to have access to a mere 3 or 4 more football games each Sunday in the fall. :) :)

If one has guests over and they say this D* HD telecast looks great, then if one fully agrees, one has to feel pretty satisfied. If that's the case, I'd ignore the visual exhibits earlier in this thread, let the true HD fanatics wallow in our rantings, and I'd enjoy a lot of HD sports on D* looming ahead, not ever looking back!

But I have to ask -- remaining civil and not flaming anyone -- it looks great compared to what? Compared to D*'s telecast of the same game on non-HD Channel 206? If that's the case, then I totally agree.

I just know that D*'s HD telecasts picked up in my house aren't nearly as good PQ-wise as for example TW Cable in the Albany, NY system or Comcast in the Staunton, Virginia system. And it's not my equipment because fairly often in the past and very very very infrequently today I'll get OTA HD reception verging on having the WOW factor.

Also, when an NFL HD game is on my DNS Channel 80 or 88 and I can also pick up the same game OTA even on a multicasting station, the latter is always superior in PQ.

Yes, Comcast Cable is available and the aforementioned HD PQ is really good -- at least in Staunton 10 miles away. My hesitancy is it used to be -- as once again I shake uncontrollably in typing this -- it used to be up until a few months ago, gasp, Adelphia. In addition, I'm out in the country and I don't know about these 15 year old underground cable trunk lines.

Lastly, I'm an NFL nut and between OTA and D* DNS -- not even ever having ST -- I can often see upwards of 6 games a Sunday total in HD and often 8 or 9 overall. So I'm waiting for MPEG-4 and if D* HD PQ doesn't substantially improve, I'm tempted to zap D* and return to cable. No sense in ranting about HD Lite for the rest of my life in order to have access to a mere 3 or 4 more football games each Sunday in the fall. :) :)


I appreciate the way you worded it, first time i havent been called a raving lunatic for saying that i am satisfied with it. My comparison is done with Cable HD, Dish HD, and even OTA. The pictures above do not represent what i am seeing. On either provider.

Yeah the sports is a sticking point for alot of people. Thats the main reason i added Direct. I already had and still have dish.

I have D* and have to agree with people's opinions here. Some HD channels are so compressed it looks horrible. Seems like HDNet is one of the worst while others look good.

What does everyone think this new MPEG 4 compression will do for PQ? Can we expect an improvement over all for HD channels? I sure hope because they have FIOS in my area and I am tempted to switch.

One thing I don't understand is how people say cable is better. It must be different from area to area because in the Dallas area former Comcast now Time Warner is terrible. Every person I see with cable always has the worst most compressed looking picture. I just think the cable strength must not be able to support the # of subscribers in the Dallas area.

Have things changed between the two sat. providers? Is the Dish picture quality still better than D*? I hope so, because as if the 29th I'll be jumping ship to The Dish due to a boatload of more stations for LESS money.:)

Have things changed between the two sat. providers? Is the Dish picture quality still better than D*? I hope so, because as if the 29th I'll be jumping ship to The Dish due to a boatload of more stations for LESS money.:)

Unfortunatly, due to technical changes it's no longer possible to look at the transport streams or grab screen captures of each provider, so comparisons are based on viewer perception of what the HD images look like.

At this time forum consensus is that DirecTV has marginally better HD image quality than Dish Network.

This topic is closed.