***Please no hotlinking!!! Use your own image hosting site.***

This is to help members who just bought their first High-Definition set and want to know which one of the mentioned SAT provider will give the better PQ and make some sense what we AVS members been talking about regarding HD-Lite. And of course to others who already have the subscriptions, finally decide to cancel the one that gives you sub-par PQ.

D* Directv
E* Dish Network
All files are nullstripped.

I'Robot

D* 8.92 gb AVB 9.80 Mbps

E*9.34 gb AVB 11.10




EDIT:

Some screenshots are now gone and I can't recover them anymore or lost.

Since then E* has also become HD-Lite full time with NO CHANNELS AVAILABLE AT 1920x1080 ANYMORE. So updating this thread with new screenshots from recent shows are moot now. IF you are one of the few who invested on HD DVD or Blu-ray then that is the only way you can watch TRUE HIGH QUALITY High Definition picture.

Elektra

D* 6.20 gb AVB 8.25 Mbps
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/489/elektrad000003gp2.jpg
E* 7.83 gb AVB 9.10 Mbps
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3010/elektrae000003wj7.jpg

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.

Just getting started :)

I viewed these captures on my Mac going into my 43" Samsung HLN437W DLP (720p) via DVI, and I can't see a difference. What exactly am I supposed to be seeing? Is it even possible to see a difference with a still image like this?

definite differences in Will Smiths forehead when he is aiming the gun. Fast motion would yield a better comparison though. And for an even more dramatic affect use HDnetmovies. D* is butchering that!

These images are all downconverted to 1536x864 and recompressed as JPEG.

xylon
You have way to much time on your hands the little difference I see is not going to sway to many people most would say there pretty close.
And of course everyones equipment and set-up is different, most anyways.
I quess it's all in the eyes of the beholder. ;)

E* Dish Network looks much sharper to me and also seems to have better color.

But to be fair both look much better than what I was lead to believe. From some of the posts I have read it made it seem like both of those providers(E and D) HD content looked horrible. It probably also helps that I Robot seems to have had an excellent transfer.

With Dish Network's great HD channel lineup I might need to check them out.


I have COX Cable in Orange County.

Motorola 6412 III HD DVR

Sony KV-34XBR910 Television

These images are all downconverted to 1536x864 and recompressed as JPEG.

Exactly you can really make a true comparison on downconverted images! NOT! Next, time please post the images in there uncompressed format through file shack or something like that. :)

Off topic, but how did you capture these in full HD? All of the non-broadcast HD channels are encrypted on my system (TWC). Is it something only cool satellite people can do?

Exactly you can really make a true comparison on downconverted images! NOT! Next, time please post the images in there uncompressed format through file shack or something like that. :)


This is exactly what I was thinking. They're not in their native resolution and in addition they have even more lossy compression applied. How do we know that any differences we are seeing are not the result of : 1) the images native resolutions being changed and 2)Jpeg handling these differently?

I applaud the effort, but this is far from optimal circumstances to judge the differences.

E* Dish Network looks much sharper to me and also seems to have better color.

But to be fair both look much better than what I was lead to believe. From some of the posts I have read it made it seem like both of those providers(E and D) HD content looked horrible. It probably also helps that I Robot seems to have had an excellent transfer.


Even more impressive when you consider these images have been further reduced in quality bith by being down-scaled from 1080 and by having yet another lossy compression scheme (jpeg) applied to them.

In all honesty though, it is more easy (and more accurate?) to judge overall PQ by watching the original signal in full motion on your television. Without full motion, it is hard to tell if there would be many visible motion artifacts and so on.

Who cares about the value of the comparison - his selection of screen shots is fantastic.

If you viewed post #2 and your focus was the text in the first example or the LCD monitor in the second example - you've lost sight of what HDTV is all about. :)

Who cares about the value of the comparison - his selection of screen shots is fantastic.

If you viewed post #2 and your focus was the text in the first example or the LCD monitor in the second example - you've lost sight of what HDTV is all about. :)

Oh, I didn't lose site of anything, trust me. In fact, I gained two extra files on my hard drive. :D

I want to know what Dave is doing, is he looking for something he lost down there? :eek: :p

So long as the images are compressed equally (hard to know with JPEG) and resized equally, it's not an unreasonable comparison.

Xylon: If it's not too much trouble, could you take a few more shots and not identify them in a separate thread with a poll asking us to identify which is which. I think that would be a LOT more telling. If there was a way to prevent people from posting replies to the thread, even better.

Xylon: I think for these to be effective you can not resize images and can not use a lossy image they should be in some lossless format like PNG at full resolution. Maybe even then its not possible to show the full effect because you would be converting from mpeg2 to something else...

I got dish network several weeks ago and have seen with my own eyes on the main HD channels (voom excluded) that E* especially HDnet movies is extremely close to full bandwidth OTA HD nothing at all like like the crap D* sends.

dont know what else to say.

Those only difference I can see is the E* has a little better color in some of the shots than D*. But as long as D* has NFL Sunday Ticket there is no contest

Make them smaller and side by side.

looks the same to me...

D* Directv
E* Dish Network
All files are nullstripped.What does null stripping have to do with the presentation of still images?

The first two images are not the same frame. I didn't bother to check the others.

they all look good.

Frankly the frogs all look the same to me, or am I missing something?
:eek:

those frogs look like blu ray pics... ;)

the frogs are pretty. damn hd has come a long way...

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.

I see you are still hell bent and totally hung up on this resolution thing :rolleyes:

I take it you still dont understand the importance of the bit rates?

Well, Ive got some news for you..All our HDTVS are capable of supporting full bit rate HDTV..

I see you are still hell bent and totally hung up on this resolution thing

I take it you still dont understand the importance of the bit rates?

I see you failed to realize all he compared was two different resolutions and spoke of nothing else. If there was a problem with that, direct it at the OP. He said nothing of bitrates.

If resolutions aren't the issue, then why do people besides me keep mentioning it. Bit*h at them for a while, and leave me alone.

I just switched from d* to E* yesterday and their is a huge difference with the picture quality. E* is much better. even the downrezzed voom channels look better than D* IMHO. The E* hd dvr also has better ota reception and the menu is about 100 times faster.

Well I have been enjoying my HD on my SXRD from Direct TV :D

I see you failed to realize all he compared was two different resolutions and spoke of nothing else. If there was a problem with that, direct it at the OP. He said nothing of bitrates.

If resolutions aren't the issue, then why do people besides me keep mentioning it. Bit*h at them for a while, and leave me alone.

He posted the resolution AND the bit rate at the top of each screen cap... The OP should have made mention of bit rates in his title though, Ill agree with that.

Everyone keeps bringing up resolution because this is all they know..

They dont understand what the real problem is, and they probably never will..

All they know is that the resolution is lower than true 1080i..

Its like u said though, the resolution dosnet mean jack for most people becasue most people dont own a set that will resolve 1080i resolutions..Even if they do own a set that will resolve full 1080i, chances are they are using a STB that wont..Almost all STB's max out at 1400 or so lines of resolution..

Which bring us back to what is really making Directv look so bad, the bit rates..

By the way, no need to carry on and whine about getting picked or whatever..These forums are for big boys and girls, no crying allowed :)

Well I have been enjoying my HD on my SXRD from Direct TV :D

Directv HD looks like dog crap on my SXRD :rolleyes:

damn i cant view any of these images. This image removed due to high-bandwidth usage. You can restore this image replacing it with a clickable thumbnail which uses less bandwidth Free image hosting at image shack. What the hell is this? Is there anyway around this? I was able to look at the pics briefly at my job

Fixing . . . . . . .

Directv HD looks like dog crap on my SXRD :rolleyes:


I admit when I was in cali when I first got my SXRD in Jan 06 coming back from a deployment the HD channels look like crab. But I didn't have time before getting stationed at Little Rock AFB to calibrate it. Since having it all hooked up since March. All the HD channels have been great I don't get the grain issue I had before I calibrated my system I use monster cables for my connections I am using HDMI for the HDDVR to the SXRD Fiber to the Surround. I have Monster Power Conditioner hooked up. Sorry it isn't looking good I guess it may be the difference in the equipment and house too. It ain't always about the signal although Bit-rate issue needs to be fixed. But of course their are some channels that don't shine as good as the other HD channels TNT, Discovery HDNET all look great on my SXRD. So you think you can dance off of my local Fox HD looks great but this past year like my favorite show 24 wasn't as good as I would like it to be. I watch the UNIT in HD on CBS and hell everything on CBS looks great in HD.

If you don't fix it soon, I'm deleting my post. I don't want people to think I was drooling over a bunch of frogs. :D

I admit when I was in cali when I first got my SXRD in Jan 06 coming back from a deployment the HD channels look like crab. But I didn't have time before getting stationed at Little Rock AFB to calibrate it. Since having it all hooked up since March. All the HD channels have been great I don't get the grain issue I had before I calibrated my system I use monster cables for my connections I am using HDMI for the HDDVR to the SXRD Fiber to the Surround. I have Monster Power Conditioner hooked up. Sorry it isn't looking good I guess it may be the difference in the equipment and house too. It ain't always about the signal although Bit-rate issue needs to be fixed. But of course their are some channels that don't shine as good as the other HD channels TNT, Discovery HDNET all look great on my SXRD. So you think you can dance off of my local Fox HD looks great but this past year like my favorite show 24 wasn't as good as I would like it to be. I watch the UNIT in HD on CBS and hell everything on CBS looks great in HD.

I wish there was an option for ISF calibration in my area, but there isnt, not that I know of..

Either way, E* looks pretty much outstanding without calibration :)

Even with calibration, its not going to make D* look better while E* stays the same..

Both are going to improve, with E* still blowing D*away :)

If you don't fix it soon, I'm deleting my post. I don't want people to think I was drooling over a bunch of frogs. :D

Yeah, I just couldn't understand why you were so pumped over a bunch of frogs. I want to see those pix! ;)

All the HD channels have been great I don't get the grain issue I had before I calibrated my system I use monster cables for my connections I am using HDMI for the HDDVR to the SXRD Fiber to the Surround. I have Monster Power Conditioner hooked up.


So Monster + calibration was all it took?

definite differences in Will Smiths forehead when he is aiming the gun. Fast motion would yield a better comparison though. And for an even more dramatic affect use HDnetmovies. D* is butchering that!

Those difference in details are more obvious if you are using HD CRTs (Tube or PJ).

Fast motion screengrabs coming up later.

I viewed these captures on my Mac going into my 43" Samsung HLN437W DLP (720p) via DVI, and I can't see a difference. What exactly am I supposed to be seeing? Is it even possible to see a difference with a still image like this?

The bitrates and resolution will determine the PQ difference. And yes still images will show you the difference. Check out Return of the Sith thread page 4.

E* Dish Network looks much sharper to me and also seems to have better color.

But to be fair both look much better than what I was lead to believe. From some of the posts I have read it made it seem like both of those providers(E and D) HD content looked horrible. It probably also helps that I Robot seems to have had an excellent transfer.

With Dish Network's great HD channel lineup I might need to check them out.




E* does seem to have better colors as far as I' Robot is concerned. The difference is minimal because E* is bit starving on this channel HBO. But the difference will vary from movie to movie.

Exactly you can really make a true comparison on downconverted images! NOT! Next, time please post the images in there uncompressed format through file shack or something like that. :)

Are you sure? :)

This is exactly what I was thinking. They're not in their native resolution and in addition they have even more lossy compression applied. How do we know that any differences we are seeing are not the result of : 1) the images native resolutions being changed and 2)Jpeg handling these differently?

I applaud the effort, but this is far from optimal circumstances to judge the differences.

What do you suggest I use? The Process?

Photoshop is excellent in preserving the original quality cap while compressing it to manageable size. Even if I upload the original .BMPs the difference will be identical to what you are seeing now. This for the uninitiated and if they can't see the difference after I'm all done here then "Dont worry be happy".

Please take into account the bitrates and resolution. We are not comparing VHS and DVD here.

Or use thumbnails and jpeg compresss the image at its original size. I think you can have up to 1M images on imageshack. Or you could convert the 1280x1080i to 1929x1080i in photoshop as this is how it's displayed. That way the 1929 x 1080 images aren't changed.

If you don't fix it soon, I'm deleting my post. I don't want people to think I was drooling over a bunch of frogs. :D
It's okay man, we know you have hours and hours of Budweiser frog commercials stored on your TiVo.

ah the good old days of comparing E* vs D* :)

Xylon be prepared for personal attacks and possibly death threats ;)

-Gary

Riddick

D* 7.98 gb AVB 8.70
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Riddick2lite.jpg

E* 9.19 gb AVB 10.64
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Riddick5full.jpg

nice shot of riddick there..that screenshot tells the story.

ah the good old days of comparing E* vs D* :)

Xylon be prepared for personal attacks and possibly death threats ;)

-Gary

These guys will protect me :D

http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bob.jpg

nice shot of riddick there..that screenshot tells the story.

We are getting there hopefully there is no more squinting to see the difference.

Screenshots with lots of movement coming soon.

nice shot of riddick there..that screenshot tells the story.
If it's indeed the exact same frame, it certainly does.

So Monster + calibration was all it took?


For my house and my equipment yes! Your situation and others may be different

For my house and my equipment yes! Your situation and others may be different

Same thing with me. One thing, Never, Never, Never use the cables that come with your TV or satellite system. A friend of mine gave me a hundred bucks to fix his set. Took off the cables and replace them with some from "The Junk Shack" that was close bye. "WOW, What did you do to my TV!!" Nuff said!

I want to know what Dave is doing, is he looking for something he lost down there? :eek: :p

Scarlett was talking to Dave about having to go in and have her wisdom teeth pulled, so Dave asked if he could have a look at them.

Later she talked about how on her 21st birthday, her brother talked her into going to a strip club to celebrate. Quite a discussion.

Directv HD looks like dog crap on my SXRD :rolleyes:

As it does on any SXRD that is adjusted properly. A simple viewing of D* on any SXRD Qualia at a Sony Store will convince you of that.

Or use thumbnails and jpeg compresss the image at its original size. I think you can have up to 1M images on imageshack. Or you could convert the 1280x1080i to 1929x1080i in photoshop as this is how it's displayed. That way the 1929 x 1080 images aren't changed.

Then it wont be fair for D* :D

E* Dish Network looks much sharper to me and also seems to have better color.



It's interesting that these are essentially the same differences I see on FIOS vs D*. Better clarity and better color with no obvious artifacting. You'll notice that the D* images have a pinker tone than the more natural color on E*. I see this too on FIOS vs D*. I think to some degree the HD Tivo puts out a pinker color rendition than some other D* STBs such as the H20. It's also interesting that the shots of Letterman look kind of pink on both D* and E* and was an issue I complained about in another thread a couple of weeks ago. It seems to me that it has since been corrected.

Nice job Xylon! I think most people can see that D*'s got some work to do to improve their PQ.

Same thing with me. One thing, Never, Never, Never use the cables that come with your TV or satellite system. A friend of mine gave me a hundred bucks to fix his set. Took off the cables and replace them with some from "The Junk Shack" that was close bye. "WOW, What did you do to my TV!!" Nuff said!


Thats what I explained to customers at Best Buy trust your own eyes, take the cables compare the difference if you don't see a difference then return the cables or conditioner nuff said. Never had a customer return any thing back when they combined their choice of recieving cables, line conditioner, and HD service.

I'm in the camp that feels that if a line conditioner had any value at all, they'd have first developed a line shampooer.

lol. nice and agreed...

I'm in the camp that feels that if a line conditioner had any value at all, they'd have first developed a line shampooer.
They do have them, they're combo packages and they're called a power supply. If the power supply in an "affected" piece of equipment is so bad that it can't deal with normal line fluctuations or noise, the person that designed it ought to be shot.

Modern power supplies are very forgiving when it comes to line voltage fluctuations and noise, some will even put out a clean DC current with as little as 70 volts and as high as 140 volts. If the incoming line fluctuates that much then there is a problem with your power company.

The Riddick shot matches what I see on D*. Anything with any fast motion just breaks up into squares. And sorry, a $150 Monster HDMI cable isn't going to fix the bit starving that D* is employing.

WOTW last weekend looked absolutely awful on D* (HBO-HD). It was so pixelated that I gave up and put in the DVD - which looked much better.

I'm in the camp that feels that if a line conditioner had any value at all, they'd have first developed a line shampooer.

ROFLMAO
:D :D

I suppose those of us using D* would have to also buy the 'coloring' attachment too!

The Riddick shot matches what I see on D*. Anything with any fast motion just breaks up into squares. And sorry, a $150 Monster HDMI cable isn't going to fix the bit starving that D* is employing.

WOTW last weekend looked absolutely awful on D* (HBO-HD). It was so pixelated that I gave up and put in the DVD - which looked much better.

Ahh forgot about this movie. It really is awful on D* HBO.

Independence Day

D* AVB 8.50 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/ID4Lite.jpg
E* AVB 11.60 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/ID4Full.jpg

D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/ID4Lite2.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/ID4Full2.jpg

D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/ID4Lite3.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/ID4Full3.jpg

For this movie there is not enough bitrate for E* HBO to decrease macroblocking. Still its higher resolution has the edge PQ wise over D*

I guess I must be blind because I honestly have not seen any differences in any of the pics other then a little better color on one set on the first page.

So you guys are telling me that there is a big difference in these pics between D* and E* (one way or another)?

Perhaps that's why I've never understood the outcry against D*'s HD quality, I just don't notice it and I'd gather most of Joe Sixpack can't either. Kind of like audio I guess. I can tell the difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. But most people I know can't tell the difference at all and think I'm crazy that I want DTS when at all possible in my DVD movies. Same goes for this HD quality thing. There are some people out there that can tell the difference. But many (most?) cannot.

I guess I got better ears then eyes! :)

Don't see significant differences either, although did spot them with images within the long thread about HDNet Movies picture quality. There, recall some 'zoomed' cropping of details brought out differences. This, apparently, enables smaller images to posted, perhaps even within the forum's limits without using external image-posting links. Always thought that posting a relatively small, even B&W image, of the HD frame being used as an example, then extracting 1/3 of the image, say 1920/640 horizontally, containing the best color and/or fine details, might be a good comparison between two HD sources. Then again, since I don't tinker in this area, could be way off base. -- John

The motion shot from 'Riddick' is the best example of the problem D* is having with their "HD" PQ that I have seen so far. Thanks for posting it! I will direct anyone who is interested in HD from D* to that picture to illustrate the problems.

If D* didn't have a monopoly on Sunday Ticket, I would switch to E*.

If D* didn't have a monopoly on Sunday Ticket, I would switch to E*.

The problem is there's *no reason* to believe that E* will be able to maintain their current "advantage." The 900lb gorilla (HD-LiL) is pounding on the door, and reports have it that E*'s attempts (so far) at using real-time MPEG4 compression, leave much to be desired ... and so the DBS world churns. :)

All together now, sing it: Churnin', churnin', proud Mary keep on churnin' :D

The problem is there's *no reason* to believe that E* will be able to maintain their current "advantage." The 900lb gorilla (HD-LiL) is pounding on the door, and reports have it that E*'s attempts (so far) at using real-time MPEG4 compression, leave much to be desired ... and so the DBS world churns. :)

All together now, sing it: Churnin', churnin', proud Mary keep on churnin' :D


This is very true.

I guess I must be blind because I honestly have not seen any differences in any of the pics other then a little better color on one set on the first page.

So you guys are telling me that there is a big difference in these pics between D* and E* (one way or another)?

Perhaps that's why I've never understood the outcry against D*'s HD quality, I just don't notice it and I'd gather most of Joe Sixpack can't either. Kind of like audio I guess. I can tell the difference between Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. But most people I know can't tell the difference at all and think I'm crazy that I want DTS when at all possible in my DVD movies. Same goes for this HD quality thing. There are some people out there that can tell the difference. But many (most?) cannot.

I guess I got better ears then eyes! :)

I absolutely see a big difference in the full motion captures, especially the one from Riddick. The D* picture is breaking up into blocks where the E* picture isn't.

Just in case any D* people want to get on me and call me biased, I currently subscribe to D* and have been for nearly 12 years.

Most AVSrs who have seen both providers know exactly where to look to see the difference. I just might post these at a much higher resolution to help others who cant see it(I understand not everyone has 20/20 vision). My problem of zooming and/or cropping the picture to highlight the quality like everyone uses is, who among you watch these movies at that distance? I want to show you guys the overall image like how you would watch.

@John Mason

There is no significant difference at first glance and thats expected. You just have to know what to look for i.e. solid lines and the amount of macroblocking. People have different setups and that also will determine what they see.

Regarding ID4 if you look at the bitrates its close thats why E* PQ is almost at par with HDlite. When you are watching full HD the bitrates has to be high enough to compensate for the added resolution. That is one of the few things AVSrs agree on :eek:

I will make adjustments as I post more pictures. You guys can also help me by mentioning some specific scene where we can make comparisons(preferrably upcoming shows so I don't have to dig thru my hard drive collections).

I absolutely see a big difference in the full motion captures, especially the one from Riddick. The D* picture is breaking up into blocks where the E* picture isn't.

Just in case any D* people want to get on me and call me biased, I currently subscribe to D* and have been for nearly 12 years.

So very true. DVD version of this thru HD-AI is much better(Heck any decent upconverting player will do). No macroblocking and huge difference in PQ.

Are you using the higher bitrate feeds from 148 when doing these caps from HBO/SHO?

E* was installed yesterday after having D* for six years. After a few hours of comparing IMO E* does look better. E* does better with fast movement where D* breaks up. It seems even the Voom channels look better than D*s main hd channels. Not sure how this could be but its definately noticable. E*s picture reminds me of how D* used to look. Not a huge difference but IMO its worth swiching providers for increased pq.

E* Dish Network looks much sharper to me and also seems to have better color.

But to be fair both look much better than what I was lead to believe. From some of the posts I have read it made it seem like both of those providers(E and D) HD content looked horrible. It probably also helps that I Robot seems to have had an excellent transfer.

With Dish Network's great HD channel lineup I might need to check them out.


I have COX Cable in Orange County.

Motorola 6412 III HD DVR

Sony KV-34XBR910 Television

I would agree with the color statment. But I would not say that E* is "much" sharper. Sharper yes, but very small.

edit: Ok, I just the other sets of pics. It is pretty obvious. It looks to me like the D8 pictures have this graineness to them. I understand that, but could someone explain how the color can be better. I don't understand how a higher bit rate could incerase color clarity.

The problem is there's *no reason* to believe that E* will be able to maintain their current "advantage." The 900lb gorilla (HD-LiL) is pounding on the door, and reports have it that E*'s attempts (so far) at using real-time MPEG4 compression, leave much to be desired ... and so the DBS world churns. :)

All together now, sing it: Churnin', churnin', proud Mary keep on churnin' :D

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go and spoil the party! You're right, of course.

The problem is there's *no reason* to believe that E* will be able to maintain their current "advantage." The 900lb gorilla (HD-LiL) is pounding on the door, and reports have it that E*'s attempts (so far) at using real-time MPEG4 compression, leave much to be desired ... and so the DBS world churns. :)

All together now, sing it: Churnin', churnin', proud Mary keep on churnin' :D

We'll enjoy it while it lasts then. I guess a lot of people, specially here, will reevaluate the value of HD (specially movie channels) once good transfers of HDDVD/Bluray become more available and the players become more accessible. Problem will be with std progrmaming that will be hard to get on disc.

Well, I just re-signed up with Time Warner and their bundled services and this is the first time I have put a good signal on my Sony WEGA SXRD. I knew that Directv was bad, but come on! All of the HD offerings from TW make Directv look STUPID !

I have the Directv H20 connected to one of my HDMI ports and the TW 8300 HD DVR on the other HDMI port and there is NO COMPARISON. My local HD channels via Direct Directv mpeg4 look anemic compared to cable. Washed out and dull and fuzzy. INHD live baseball is breathtaking.

Goodbye Directv. Since Dish does not give me locals in HD, I could not consider them....

Finally, my 1080p set is proving its worth!

Can you guys explain why you call DirecTV, D* and Dish Network, E*?

general laziness...

personally, i prefer to just spell out directv...what are you saving, 1/3 of a second?

Basically yes, even though I'm guilty of it myself sometimes I think it is just lazy, forum slang.

D* stands for DirecTV
E* stands for Echostar, the company the own/runs Dish Network.

Alien vs Predator

D* AVB 9.90 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/AvP1lite.jpg
E* AVB 10.30 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/AvP1full.jpg

Hint:

Stop looking at the pretty yellow flame ;) instead look at the floor and notice that on D* macroblocking is everywhere and the image details are gone. D* suffers horribly whenever there is fast motion. You will also notice that the bitrates are very close but on this particular movie it doesn't matter.

D* is doing a superb job compressing and downrezing the movie to make it look like your watching xvid encoded movie :D

Up next War of the Worlds :eek:

Are you using the higher bitrate feeds from 148 when doing these caps from HBO/SHO?

Not on these caps. I'm using 119,110 and 129 currently.

I will eventually post 1920x1080i screen caps but on my discretion so please stop asking me about it.

Thanks.

Stop looking at the pretty yellow flame ;) instead look at the floor and notice that on D* macroblocking is everywhere and the image details are gone. D* suffers horribly whenever there is fast motion.
What areas, exactly, should I be comparing for macroblocking and absent details? Not seeing this on my Dell 20" LCD set to 800X600. Sure appreciate all the effort needed for image comparisons, but just not seeing differences. Not saying D* doesn't screw up PQ (from all the complaints), but just can't see it here. -- John

Look at the steps under the pretty flames for one - it's extremely obvious once you look in the right spot and matches what I see on DirecTV all the time... :p In this particular case, there's some blocking, but the main difference is that almost all of the fine detail and texture that's visible in the E* picture has been smoothed over in the D* one.

The steps are obvious, but if you must look at the pretty flame, check out the top of the flame just above the 3rd step (looks like a wave cresting towards the victim). The E* screenshot shows a distinct "v" notch that is almost completely smoothed out in the D* screenshot.

Another clear difference is the shooters left arm - looking at the jacket's wrinkles in the fabric from inside the elbow all the way down to the end of the sleeve.

If those aren't apparent, increase the resolution of your monitor.

... but the main difference is that almost all of the fine detail and texture that's visible in the E* picture has been smoothed over in the D* one.

I have a feeling that as real-time MPEG4 (re)encoding usage increases, so will this type of PQ degradation - especially in the background of the image. Is visible film grain a thing of the past? ;) :D

The steps are obvious, but if you must look at the pretty flame, check out the top of the flame just above the 3rd step (looks like a wave cresting towards the victim). The E* screenshot shows a distinct "v" notch that is almost completely smoothed out in the D* screenshot.

Another clear difference is the shooters left arm - looking at the jacket's wrinkles in the fabric from inside the elbow all the way down to the end of the sleeve.

If those aren't apparent, increase the resolution of your monitor.
I didn't want to point anything like that out because I'm not 100% convinced that the two shots are from the exact same frame, and in fact, the more I study the differences in the flames in the two shots, the more I'm convinced that they are probably 1 frame off from each other sequentially. This likely doesn't matter much for purposes of this comparison for most of that frame though since most of it should be relatively static...

I didn't want to point anything like that out because I'm not 100% convinced that the two shots are from the exact same frame, and in fact, the more I study the differences in the flames in the two shots, the more I'm convinced that they are probably 1 frame off from each other sequentially. This likely doesn't matter much for purposes of this comparison for most of that frame though since most of it should be relatively static...

I think you're right, the small spots of flame to the left of that wave aren't consistent with them being from the same frame.

However, looking at the sleeve, it shows the degradation typical of bandwidth/resolution reduced HD. Even if the comparison isn't 100% accurate between D* vs. E*, it does provide a good example of HD vs. HD-Lite.

What areas, exactly, should I be comparing for macroblocking and absent details? Not seeing this on my Dell 20" LCD set to 800X600. Sure appreciate all the effort needed for image comparisons, but just not seeing differences. Not saying D* doesn't screw up PQ (from all the complaints), but just can't see it here. -- John

Set your 20" Dell to 1280x1024. Then report back.

D* AVB 8.30 Mbps
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/63/waroftheworldslite0000ar0.jpg
E* AVB 12.50 Mbps
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/2117/waroftheworldsfull0000iy6.jpg

D*
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/1056/waroftheworldslite2gv4.jpg
E*
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8233/waroftheworldsfull20000yz5.jpg

D*
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6299/waroftheworldslite3ac2.jpg
E*
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/8482/waroftheworldsfull30000lj0.jpg

D*
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1750/waroftheworldslite4qe2.jpg
E*
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/639/waroftheworldsfull40000yy5.jpg

D*
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/401/waroftheworldslite5vj5.jpg
E*
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/7475/waroftheworldsfull50000ui7.jpg

You guys still need a hint what to look for? ;)

no, the differences there are pretty apparent. holy crap though that little girl looks creepy...

You guys still need a hint what to look for? ;)

So what you're saying is if I smash my face up on the screen then I'll see the difference or at super zoomed screen caps. Ok, I'll give you that. But at *normal* viewing distance of 10 feet or more then I doubt most will see the diff.

In all honesty, neither one of them is perfect as there is macroblocking in both, but the E* captures definitely suffer from significantly less.

The most obvious differences are in the explosion scene and the close up on Dakota Fanning. Look at the fur on her collar and under her right eye (on the left as viewed here).

bonscott, you're kidding right? I mean, just look at War of the Worlds comparison shot #3. In the D* one, it's blocking so badly in areas that the effective resolution in those spots would be down to probably around 240x135 if the entire screen looked like that. I don't care how far back you sit, you will notice that. :p Granted, these latest shots are abusive enough that the E* shots are far from perfect themselves, but the blocking in them is far less noticable...

Wow, those are pretty bad, imagine what they would look like on say a 10' screen. :eek:

Like I posted earlier, in the screenshots on the first couple pages I just see no difference. On the zoomed in ones just above, yea sure, I see a difference. Which was part of my (failed obviously) point. If I sit 2 feet from the screen sure I see macroblocking. I even see that on OTA HD. But sitting back 10 feet I just don't see the "hd-lite" on D* that others see. But then perhaps it's my bad eyes and my "tiny" 43" screen. I also don't have E* and have never seen E* HD in action (I don't know anybody with E*) and that's why I never claim D* is better then E* or the other way around, I don't have a way to compare with my own eyes.

All I'm saying is that sure, a lot of the guys here on this forum are videophiles where 60" screens a tiny. Thus they are picky and we all know the bigger the screen the easier you'll see any artifacts and blocking. But Joe Sixpack doesn't have those 100" projectors and just sits back and enjoys the movie or American Idol. Unless the artifacts are really, really noticeable on a less then 60" screen they just aren't going to notice. Anyway, these arguements are always doomed to "yes it is! no it's not!" so perhaps it's time to lurk on the thread once again...

bonscott, those shots aren't zoomed in any shape, way, or form - they're 1920x1080, the original resolution. So if you happen to have a 1080p display, WYSIWYG in this case. :p Even with a lesser-resolution display, though, those artifacts are obvious. I dare say they'd even be visible on many SD sets through an HD box's down-converted S-Video or composite output...

Title edited to add warning.

So what you're saying is if I smash my face up on the screen then I'll see the difference or at super zoomed screen caps. Ok, I'll give you that. But at *normal* viewing distance of 10 feet or more then I doubt most will see the diff.
Wow thats ignorant.

Some screen shots of the Kingdom of Heaven would be a good comparison that 2.5 hour movie comes in under 9.5 GB on D* :rolleyes:

Set your 20" Dell to 1280x1024. Then report back.
SIR, reporting as ordered. ;-)

The macroblocks on Fanning's fur collar and under her eye were visible even at 800X600, but going back to the AvP flame/steps shots with the bump up to 1280X1024 didn't help; still can't see significant differences. Thanks again for all the comparison efforts. Maybe it's not possible, for some reason, to compare E*/D* images of HDNet's Tuesday 6 am ET resolution wedges (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7359152&&#post7359152), run in such a way to contrast the 'blur' points on the largest center vertical wedges (horizontal resolution, X100 for rez/PH, then X1.78 for rez/16X9 PW). -- John

The e are consistently bettr than the d in my monitor.

I’d like to suggest an appointment at your local optometrist for those who see little or no difference. Now we know who buys those crappy TVs and why. ;)

The e are consistently bettr than the d in my monitor.

Did D* make your keyboard? :)

I recently switched from D* to E* and seemed to notice a big step up in quality, especially on HBO and HDNETMovies. I was starting to think I was imagining it all after looking at yesterday's screen shots, but come on guys, look at the one of Dakota Fanning's face (the second shot, not the first washed out one)! Each one of those blocks would be about 1/2 in x1in wide on my screen. I sit about ten feet back, but I can sure as hell resolve 1/2 in x 1in. Hell, a few feet closer and I can start to see individual pixels, which are microscopic in comparison. Case closed. Well done Xylon!

The DirecTV shot of Fanning is reminiscent of what SciFi Channel looks like much of the time, but hey, it's a 16x9 image, so at least DirecTV has that part of HDTV right. :p

This is getting bad now even the E* captures look like crap and if you were getting this for your HD as a E* subscriber you would be calling up to cancel. They just do not display like this on either D* or E* with any display.
So whats the POINT :confused:

This is getting bad now even the E* captures look like crap and if you were getting this for your HD as a E* subscriber you would be calling up to cancel. They just do not display like this on either D* or E* with any display.
So whats the POINT :confused:


Its even worse than that. Remember that before this crap starts blocking to the point where we can post screen shots of it in a thread so that hard headed people will admit that its there, the picture loses some sharpness, vibrance, pop and color saturation long before the blocking occurs. But still people make comments about sitting far enough away to where they wont see the blocking.

I want to know what Dave is doing, is he looking for something he lost down there? :eek: :p

Oh Dave was being Dave...he was checking out her teeth.

Tim

SIR, reporting as ordered. The macroblocks on Fanning's fur collar and under her eye were visible even at 800X600, but going back to the AvP flame/steps shots with the bump up to 1280X1024 didn't help; still can't see significant differences. Thanks again for all the comparison efforts. Maybe it's not possible, for some reason, to compare E*/D* images of HDNet's Tuesday 6 am ET resolution wedges (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7359152&&#post7359152), run in such a way to contrast the 'blur' points on the largest center vertical wedges (horizontal resolution, X100 for rez/PH, then X1.78 for rez/16X9 PW). -- John

Acknowledged. 10-4 :)

Oh Dave was being Dave...he was checking out her teeth.

Tim
Okay, I though maybe he was checking for some structural or capacity issues that might arise during some possible off-camera GreenRoom activity after the show.

So what you're saying is if I smash my face up on the screen then I'll see the difference or at super zoomed screen caps. Ok, I'll give you that. But at *normal* viewing distance of 10 feet or more then I doubt most will see the diff.

Before they say the pix are too small so I made it bigger now its too big? The 1920x1080i screen caps are not even necessary to see the difference for this movie.

Gimme a break here :(

Some screen shots of the Kingdom of Heaven would be a good comparison that 2.5 hour movie comes in under 9.5 GB on D* :rolleyes:

Working on it :)

I am a D* sub. I called today inquiring about bitrates. Spoke to five CSRs before one understood the question (three were in advanced technical department). The one that understood said D* does not even tell them the exact bitrates. However he knows they fluctuate and MPEG4 will be cut basically in half. Asked him if there are any plans to raise to compete with dish and cable. He searched some internal forums, and then said he doesnt see anything. I asked if there was any way to ask the engineers/architects such a question. He said they dont have any contact or means to pass questions to them.

Motion makes a lot of difference. Notice lower right area. Tire smoke, jaggies, etc.
D* is 7.9 AVB. E* is 9.6. You can easily see which is which.

http://www.filelodge.com/files/room36/1017088/Days%20of%20Thunder%20%28lite%29.jpg

http://www.filelodge.com/files/room36/1017088/Days%20of%20Thunder.jpg

Thanks for that screenshot. The smoke ruins it for D* among others.

Kingdom Of Heaven

D* 9.0 gb AVB 8.00 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Kingdom-of-Heavenlite.jpg
E* 9.93 gb AVB 9.00 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Kingdom-of-Heavenfull-%2802%29.jpg

D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Kingdom-of-Heavenllite1.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Kingdom-of-Heavenfull-%2803%29.jpg

WotW has 13 AVB this one only has 9 AVB! from E*. Great example on how bit starving affects PQ.

To me it seems like the bit rates fluctuate alot. Im setting up my hr10 to record to PC, I suppose I can record movies multiple times and keep the ones with the highest bit rates. Your pictures are quite helpfull, thanks.

I recently switched from D* to E* and seemed to notice a big step up in quality, especially on HBO and HDNETMovies. I was starting to think I was imagining it all after looking at yesterday's screen shots, but come on guys, look at the one of Dakota Fanning's face (the second shot, not the first washed out one)! Each one of those blocks would be about 1/2 in x1in wide on my screen. I sit about ten feet back, but I can sure as hell resolve 1/2 in x 1in. Hell, a few feet closer and I can start to see individual pixels, which are microscopic in comparison. Case closed. Well done Xylon!

audiomagnete, based upon the bit rates provided you really should not see much diff on HBO. The bit rates between D & E are very close. Now on HD Net there is a huge difference.

This is getting bad now even the E* captures look like crap and if you were getting this for your HD as a E* subscriber you would be calling up to cancel. They just do not display like this on either D* or E* with any display.
So whats the POINT :confused:

Yes, they do. WOTW looked as bad on my 1080P set as these screen grabs illustrate. I quit watching and put in the DVD instead. I'm about to cancel with D* due to their horrendous HDTV quality.

Dead Pool

D* 5.90 gb AVB 8.33 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/The-Dead-Poollite.0000-%2802%29%281%29.jpg
E* 11.70 gb AVB 17.17 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/The-Dead-Poolfull.0000-%2803%29.jpg

Macroblocking more pronounced on D*.

Ok so the goal here is to compare the worst case bandwidth senario on D* to the best case senario on E*???? :rolleyes: ... Just curious. :D

Has anyone tried sending these types of picture comparisons to DirecTV, even if you have to print it out and mail it? How could they argue that their picture quality is up to par after seeing these pictures?

DirecTV won't argue, they know exactly what they are sending out. But don't expect them to issue a press release.

audiomagnete, based upon the bit rates provided you really should not see much diff on HBO. The bit rates between D & E are very close. Now on HD Net there is a huge difference.

Aren't the "Kingdom of Heaven" and "War of the Worlds" screenshots from HBO? I think that's a significant difference.

Wow half the bit rate on that last one. Does the bit rate fluctuate alot? Say like War of the Words at 7pm vs the next showing maybe in the morning? Or is it always the same for a given movie?

I emailed D* with some of these concerns, and here is their reply.

Discussion Thread
Response (John D) 08/03/2006 10:01 PM
Dear Mr. Piper,

Thank you for writing. I'm sorry to hear that you didn't receive courteous, professional treatment from our phone representative when you called us.

As you know, we’re in the testing stages for our new HD DVR that can record programming broadcast in both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 format, but I don’t expect it to be available until fall. I’m sorry I don’t have any more specific information right now, but stay tuned to directv.com for the latest news about new equipment. If you would like, I could also add your email so you may receive updates in the next few months, until the product becomes available. At that point, we’ll tell you know how to order one.

In accordance with our company policy, we cannot give out the specifics of the resolution of our broadcast signal. This is partly because we are always fine-tuning our quality. The goal of our engineers is to design the very best transmission operation that will bring you extraordinary video, audio, and data along with the programming.

Though our engineers have very high standards, I'm sure you understand that our success as a business depends in part on carrying a wide selection of programming. Therefore, due to limitations in satellite space capacity we must balance our desire to provide outstanding signal quality with the demand for a wide selection of channels. We are proud of the job we do at delivering both.

To be able to keep enhancing our signal quality AND to bring our customers lots of choices, we are always working on upgrades to our broadcast infrastructure that let us transmit our programming more efficiently.

Our HDTV channel selection is one of the best available. Because we offer 100% digital programming, you receive great picture quality on all channels, not just the ones in high definition. With cable, even digital cable, many channels are delivered in analog, resulting in signal degradation when viewed on an HDTV.

Some other advantages to HDTV on DIRECTV:

- No service-level requirement. Many cable companies require a subscription to a digital service tier to receive HD content.
- HD Pay Per View programming choices.
- A wide variety of sports programs in HD, including up to 100 NFL games in HD (subject to blackout and game availability restrictions) with subscription to the DIRECTV-exclusive NFL SUNDAY TICKET package.
- The all-new DIRECTV HD DVR, combining the clarity of HD and the control of DIRECTV DVR service, all in one box.

As you might imagine, high-definition channels are some of the most expensive ones for us to carry, both in terms of what we pay the networks to distribute their programming and the technology we use to deliver them. In fact, we added TNT HD on February 17 and ESPN 2 HD last fall. We recently expanded our HD coverage to include New York Yankees games broadcast in HD by YES Network on channel 96 or 97.

In order to preserve the integrity of both our business and the networks involved, we do not disclose the negotiation process, and do not announce anything before an official press release has been made. However, we're committed to providing the best in HDTV programming and to continue to add new channels and programming we're in constant discussions with various program providers to increase the number of high definition programs we offer.

Difficult service experiences, like the one you had, are rare and we certainly do not take them lightly. In order to follow up on your concern, can you give us the name of the phone representative you spoke with and the date and approximate time of day that you called?

Thank you again for writing and we sincerely apologize for the poor service you received from our staff.

Sincerely,

John
DIRECTV Customer Service

Aren't the "Kingdom of Heaven" and "War of the Worlds" screenshots from HBO? I think that's a significant difference.

1 mbps is not that much of a diff. Now 9 to 17 on Dead pool that's big.

DirecTV won't argue, they know exactly what they are sending out. But don't expect them to issue a press release.

I wrote to them as well, and got nearly the same answer:

Thank you for asking us about the picture quality on your DIRECTV System. I apologize for your frustration regarding your HD channels picture quality. In accordance with our company policy, we cannot give out the specifics of the resolution of our broadcast signal. This is partly because we are always fine-tuning our quality. The goal of our engineers is to design the very best transmission operation that will bring you extraordinary video, audio, and data along with the programming.

Though our engineers have very high standards, I'm sure you understand that our success as a business depends in part on carrying a wide selection of programming. Therefore, due to limitations in satellite space capacity we must balance our desire to provide outstanding signal quality with the demand for a wide selection of channels. We are proud of the job we do at delivering both.

To be able to keep enhancing our signal quality AND to bring our customers lots of choices, we are always working on upgrades to our broadcast infrastructure that let us transmit our programming more efficiently. In other words, we can add more channels without sacrificing picture quality, and we can improve picture quality without having to drop any channels.

We appreciate your patience as we adjust and fine tune our systems. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

The fact that they refuse to acknowledge their resolution as proprietary information speaks volumes.

You expect to ever get a straight response on anything from these clowns?

Wow half the bit rate on that last one. Does the bit rate fluctuate alot? Say like War of the Words at 7pm vs the next showing maybe in the morning? Or is it always the same for a given movie?

Different times with different movies bit rates will vary. But not much on D*. So don't expect any significant improvement on PQ. On E* however there is a higher bitrate satellite where you can point your dish to (SAT 148).

Unless D* decides to increase bitrate on WotW showing to at least 12 Mbps you wont notice any difference at all. So personally I wont bother archiving that movie since the upconverted DVD will be preferable (not all the time of course. Most of the movies from HBO still gives you that extra edge in PQ over DVD. Even on D*).

There was WotW PPV on D* months ago and that channel typically averages about 12 Mbps or so. Maybe someone who has the cap can post the same screengrab frame?

Get Out!

D* AVB 12.20 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Get-Out%21lite.0000-%2802%29.jpg
E* AVB 17.15 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Get-Out%21full-%2803%29.jpg

D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Get-Out%21lite.0000.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Get-Out%21full-%2802%29.jpg

D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Get-Out%21.Riviera-Mayalite.0.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Get-Out%21full.jpg

Hint: In the background far left the girl in dark blue bikini you see that on D* macroblocking is worse. Same thing with girls in the foreground now if you look at their chests :o the skin are smoother and more define on E*. Also if you notice D* compression is having a hard time keeping up. Wind is blowing, palm tress are swaying, old people in bikinis, the girls hair fluttering and the waves crashing. There is just so much movement in the background and the foreground that even with the bitrate its not enough.

The first and second set the difference in PQ are smaller because of less movement on the screen and D*'s bitrate is adequate (well at least) for that scene.

The truth of the matter is if D* can't or won't go back to 1920x1080i then they should raise the bitrates to at least 16 Mbps. I have seen this bitrates on D* from shows like Bikini Destination and some concert series.

I sure hope those people with Ruby's and CRT projectors are not using D* for their HD viewing because they are being cheated :mad:

I sure hope those people with Ruby's and CRT projectors are not using D* for their HD viewing because they are being cheated :mad:

I disagree, everyone with D* HD service is being cheated.

Xylon! Do you have any shots from the Gaming HD channel that E* has? I want to order E* for this channel! I have TWC at the moment.

I disagree, everyone with D* HD service is being cheated.

Of course.

Xylon! Do you have any shots from the Gaming HD channel that E* has? I want to order E* for this channel! I have TWC at the moment.

Its worth it.

Xylon, macroblocking is that kind of greyish-out of focus-fuzziness on that old ladys blue/white swimsuit? I see that term here alot, but I have no idea what I'm looking for :D

Xylon, macroblocking is that kind of greyish-out of focus-fuzziness on that old ladys blue/white swimsuit? I see that term here alot, but I have no idea what I'm looking for :D
It's the blockiness you see, look from the air tank to her left and then straight across her stomach, you'll see the blocky patterns.


There's a bunch of edge enhancement in that DirecTV shot as well, they both have it but the D* shot is bad.

Xylon! Do you have any shots from the Gaming HD channel that E* has? I want to order E* for this channel! I have TWC at the moment.

This channel looks very good because most of it is just from the games themselves. A screencap from one of the games would look better than either of the Bikini caps above.

2001 Space Odyssey

D* 8.48 gb AVB 7.75 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/2001lite.jpg
E* 18.2 gb AVB 17 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/2001full.jpg

Holy EE Batman!

I disagree, everyone with D* HD service is being cheated.


Lied to? Not any more than any other provider.

Cheated? I'd feel a heck of a lot worse as a Cablevision sub, where my dollars would support the Knick fiasco. How's that for cheated?

You're flirting with troll status, and that's not a word I throw around lightly...

2001 Space Odyssey



Holy EE Batman!
Yeah, that was covered pretty throughly in the 2001 thread, it gets much better later in the film.

Xylon! Do you have any shots from the Gaming HD channel that E* has? I want to order E* for this channel! I have TWC at the moment.

If you are a gamer that channel is worth it. I watch more of that channel vs the some of the other Voom channels but YMMV.

Harry Potter Prisoner Of Azkaban

D* AVB 8 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Harry-Potterlite1.jpg
E* AVB 11 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Harry-Potterfull.jpg

Hello everyone,

I am now finding a lot of threads that I might call home regarding a macro blocking (mpeg2 compression) issue. I just got FiosTV here in Tampa, Florida and I have a 92" 720 native HD Panasonic projector and I hate second guessing myself what I was seeing when I ran through HD content for the first time. I enjoy watching MTV-HD and the concerts were just going crazy with strobes and laser lights but I was seeing this degrading picture quality all the time between high intensity scenes.

I have called the Fios tech center countless amount of times and after a month of them saying it was me, I finally got a hold of someone that said it was them! I am not sure what they can do about this. Fios has not got back to me on how they are going to correct it. But what makes me pissed even more is how the hell all of you (customers) put up with a crap of a signal quality and let them get away with it.

I keep saying to Verizon: "Hey if this is the limits of HD technology for FiosTV and this is the best that you can do with the picture quality then admit to it and I will move on." But we keep playing these cat and mouse games.

I own a home theater consulting biz and there is no way I could or would show them a HD concert and say "You too can have this pixelization in HD!" They would walk out! So I am showing them static slow scenes of the Discovery channel of turtles anything that is slow. ;-)

Do any of you own a HD player? I believe that Blu-ray also uses MPEG2. Do any of you see this macro blocking when connected to a dedicated box?

Soooo...I am guessing that the best way to see what you are receiving is knowing the bit rate of what is coming in. I would guess that NO tech would even know how to use a spectrum analyzer or even know how to use it. Anyone have one near me? ;-)

Just so you can see what I am seeing and many of you I know what I am talking about but if you don't here is a sample of a MTV-HD concert before (normal) and after (macro blocking) when a strobe light in between that caused the blocking.

Thanks,

Steve.

Hmmm......someone that demonstrates HD at 720p in an attempt to show how good it looks.

Interesting.

I am a true PJ die-hard....I believe the best bang for the buck! I haven't got my hands on a VP11S1 1080p Marantz yet...can't wait though. Anyway, if I am seeing crap at 720 then 1080 will be no difference. But one thing is for sure is if we don't complain to the providers about the lack of quality of their content that they are dishing out to us then they won't do nothing about it. I am not sure from seeing others posting here if it really does but I am sure going to give it my all. And if not then bye bye HDTV!

Steve.

There are limits to how much bitrate can be given to any given length of time due to memory buffers and bandwidth constraints. Verizon can't fix PQ problems that originate elsewhere, and MHD can't give the concerts the 40 mbit/s or so they would need to be able to peak at to not block up on strobe effects. Every time the light flashes and then goes dark the content on screen changes so much that it really needs to be encoded as an I frame. However, I frames take like 3x the space of P frames, and 10x the space of B frames. 18mbit/s is just barely enough to sustain a "block-free" image for 1080i video, and when you get to lots of scene changes in a small amount of time, there's just no avoiding blocking. If you want to complain about it, go ahead, but it won't change anything. Multipass encoding with uncapped variable bitrate distribution isn't an option for a fixed system such as ATSC because there are specified standards for transmission and decoding buffers that can't be exceeded. Don't expect Bluray or HDDVD to look much better either since they have to live within certain profiles as well. Even regular DVDs from concerts suffer from blocking, and I would imagine that for HD cams that record in MPEG2 format that there would be blocking in that too, although not as bad since they would usually be recording at a higer rate.

When a clear case can be made for provider-specific overcompression such as the screenshots here comparing D* and E*, then you might have a valid issue. D* obviously doesn't care to provide top quality HD when they can get by with less. As long as the number of subscribers they gain by having more channels is greater than the number of subscribers they lose due to PQ complaints, they have no reason to change. AVS has fewer than 300000 users, and far less than that who actively participate and only a fraction of them are D* subscribers. As long as the members of this and similar communities the only ones who can tell the difference and care enough about PQ to change providers over it, they have nothing to worry about.

However, in this case, your complaint is with MHD. You would be able to watch that concert on MHD on Charter or Cox or anyone else carrying it and see the same thing. There's really no point in complaining to Verizon about it as they can't do anything, and you have to keep in mind that MHD is being sent to numerous different system operators who send to their customers at different rates via different methods. MHD has to provide a feed that will work for the largest number of systems serving the largest number of subscribers. They can't arbitrarily decide to start feeding at 45mbit/s and requiring the individual system operators to reencode their stream like a network affiliate. That would be extremely expensive and not worth the hassle or money.

Xylon! Do you have any shots from the Gaming HD channel that E* has? I want to order E* for this channel! I have TWC at the moment.
GamePlay HD is very cool, alot of good content and they're adding stuff all the time, like the Guild Wars championship

GamePlay HD is very cool, alot of good content and they're adding stuff all the time, like the Guild Wars championship
I will see first hand on FRIDAY.

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 TV is 1366x768 also, but I can always tell when a show is 1920 or blurred/color-reduced/re-compressed 1280.

Smart Travels with Rudy Maxa

D* 2.40 gb AVB 12.20 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Smart-Travelslite.jpg
E* 1.90 gb AVB 10.00 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Smart-Travelsfull.jpg

From 17 Mbps to 10 Mbps on E* HDNET. D* now has a higher bitrate.

That extra noticeable difference in PQ is gone IMHO.

Now I feel hungry! ;)

I will see first hand on FRIDAY.
Well I have my equipment installed, it's just not working properly. I can pick up all of the HD channels fine, but when I try to tune to a regular channel no pic. Keeps giving me a "ERROR 002" Signal lost??? then it says trying to aquire signal. But never does. As far as PQ I'm impressed. HGTVHD, and GAMEPLAYHD looks wonderful. I also checked out HDNET, WorldNewsHD, Ultra, FoodNetworkHD, Equator and they look great too. No complaints on HD PQ. Not sure what HD-lite is, but it looks good to me! I can't tune to SD channels, so I don't know what they look like. I also like the way E* channel guide looks and works. Neat! Installation is the only complaint, he didn't check all me channels before leaving. i noticed 5 minutes after he pulled off. I tried to call his cell, and no answer. I called E* and they got ahold of him, go figure. So he's suppose to come back out today. We'll see.

HD-Lite looks good my friend . . . . . . . .

until you see what a full rez high bitrate version of whatever it is your watching looks like.

Mean Girls

D* AVB 10.00 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Meanlite1.jpg
E* AVB 12.75 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Meanfull1.jpg
D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Meanlite2.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Meanfull2.jpg
D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Meanlite3.jpg
E*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Meanfull3.jpg

EDIT:
I changed the original cap because its just too grainy.

no noticable difference between dish and directv but directv has the sunday ticket.

hmmm......i'll take directv, thank you very much.

are you ready for some football!? :)

Those Mean Girls shots look awful. The DishNetwork shot is only ever so slightly better than DirecTV, but nothing to get excited about. I'm very disappointed in the quality of HD that is being offered by these services. I can only hope that when DirecTV moves everything to Mpeg4, things will improve. But, how long will it be until they load so many channels on there that they even reach the limits of what Mpeg4 can accomplish and still look good?

Maybe it's how the screenshots were handled (no one is using the Dscaler5 mod?) but none of the screenshots in this thread even remotely resemble HD. It seems like the choice is between crap and more crap.

Maybe it's how the screenshots were handled (no one is using the Dscaler5 mod?) but none of the screenshots in this thread even remotely resemble HD. It seems like the choice is between crap and more crap.

Must.Resist.

Must.Resist.


must resist what? he speaks the truth. i know you're on a crusade here to demonstrate the superiority of dish over directv, but based on these shots it just isn't there. there may be some instances where it looks SLIGHTLY better to very trained eyes, but as Kram said, its more a question of looking at crap versus crap, as NONE of the shots made me jump out of my chair and exclaim "HOT damn! now THAT"S HDTV!!!!"...

Must.Resist.
Sorry, but he's right. Most of these examples show so little difference in quality, I can't understand why anyone would go through the bother of switching from D* to E* based on quality. Now D* to Comcast or FIOS, that's a different story. Of course, if you're switching to E* based on the additional Vomm channels, then that's a valid cause. However, there just isn't enough difference in most cases to be worth a switch between the two. While E* is marginally better, it's like saying dog poop doesn't smell as bad as cow poop.

Finally, I have to say "We get it - D* has horrible HD quality." Continueing to post screenshots isn't going to make that any more clear. We get the point. I'd rather see comparisons to the same programming on Comcast and Fios compared to D* or E*. If you really want to show D* customers what they're missing, that's what we need to be seeing.

As I have said before watching HD from DirecTV on my 40" Sony XBR Direct-View looks extremely good to me. So ignorance is definitely bliss. :)

There is (was) a clear difference for us on our Sony 32" CRT between Dish SD/HD and DirecTV. I got rid of the HD from DirecTV because it looked so bad even on our smaller family room TV. Dish is MUCH better in PQ then DirecTV. My wife and I could see the differences right off the bat. Does it compare to C-Band HD? Heck no, but its a lot better than DirecTV.

I have just about given up on getting full bandwidth HD anymore. All of our local channels are sub-channeled now and the quality has dropped over what it was a year ago. So I will go with whoever has the edge on PQ and offers the most HD for the best value. At this time, that is clearly Dish network (for our location - FIOS will never show up here, and adelphia cable looks like garbage - digital or otherwise)

Duplicate. Please Remove.

Sorry, but he's right. Most of these examples show so little difference in quality, I can't understand why anyone would go through the bother of switching from D* to E* based on quality. Now D* to Comcast or FIOS, that's a different story. Of course, if you're switching to E* based on the additional Vomm channels, then that's a valid cause. However, there just isn't enough difference in most cases to be worth a switch between the two. While E* is marginally better, it's like saying dog poop doesn't smell as bad as cow poop.

Finally, I have to say "We get it - D* has horrible HD quality." Continueing to post screenshots isn't going to make that any more clear. We get the point. I'd rather see comparisons to the same programming on Comcast and Fios compared to D* or E*. If you really want to show D* customers what they're missing, that's what we need to be seeing.

Let me know the moment FIOS HDTV programs can be cap and I will do the comparison.

You have no idea how appreciative members were when I did these screenshots. It did help make their decision to switching services (not necessarily to E*). If you care to read my responses instead of looking at just the "crappy" pictures I have no agenda. I make critical comments on both providers.

This is not for members who already know what is up. Its for the casual members and J6HP to help them visually of what the F*** we are talking about. We can throw numbers and statistics(not a criticism) but not all of us here understood them.

Before any members jump in to defend me :p there is no need to. There are apologists on both sides and we know who they are. Both providers offers services that fit our tastes and preference. I'm fortunate to get both, D* for their DirecTivo and foozball (not to mention I've been with them for more than a decade and the hardware I invested on them. 14 STBs and 6 satellite dish) and E* for PQ. I don't want these thread to go down the crapper like similar ones. This thread so far has been very civil and nice lets keep it that way. Yes?

If you have the equipment, visual acuity and want to get the best PQ between these DBS providers E* has the advantage. That is my very, very humble opinion.

well, i certainly have the equipment and the desire, so it must be my visual acuity then...

i do appreciate the screen grabs however...

Let me know the moment FIOS HDTV programs can be cap and I will do the comparison.

You have no idea how appreciative members were when I did these screenshots. It did help make their decision to switching services (not necessarily to E*). If you care to read my responses instead of looking at just the "crappy" pictures I have no agenda. I make critical comments on both providers.

This is not for members who already know what is up. Its for the casual members and J6HP to help them visually of what the F*** we are talking about. We can throw numbers and statistics(not a criticism) but not all of us here understood them.

Before any members jump in to defend me :p there is no need to. There are apologists on both sides and we know who they are. Both providers offers services that fit our tastes and preference. I'm fortunate to get both, D* for their DirecTivo and foozball (not to mention I've been with them for more than a decade and the hardware I invested on them. 14 STBs and 6 satellite dish) and E* for PQ. I don't want these thread to go down the crapper like similar ones. This thread so far has been very civil and nice lets keep it that way. Yes?

If you have the equipment, visual acuity and want to get the best PQ between these DBS providers E* has the advantage. That is my very, very humble opinion.
I fully understand your position and it is interesting to see that there is a difference, even if it is small in most cases (the Riddick stills are probably the most blatent). However, neither provider is sending out what any of us should consider good quality HD. That is why I feel it does less of a service to compare D* to E*. If people see only a slight difference, there's less reason to demand better.

People have been speaking well of other services and it would be nice to get a real feel for the difference between the best quality from either sat company vs. what one could get from a better quality provider.

If you have the equipment, visual acuity and want to get the best PQ between these DBS providers E* has the advantage. That is my very, very humble opinion.

For how long ?????.
I have D* and will wait until the new sats are up and see what they do with there bandwidth and then I will make a choice if need be. ;)

For how long ?????.
I have D* and will wait until the new sats are up and see what they do with there bandwidth and then I will make a choice if need be. ;)

And I am hoping that, by the time I have to make a decision on switching to the Mpeg4 boxes, that FIOS will be in Queens, and have all the channels I require - YES-HD, HDNet, HDNet Movies, Discovery HD, ESPN/ESPN2 HD, Setanta Sports (this last one is a deal breaker for me) - so that I can decide between the two. At this point, I've been DirecTV for so long (12 years) and I've sunk so much money into DirecTV (three dishes, switched 4 first-gen receivers over to 3 HD receivers + 2 HD Tivos, changed the multiswitch) it's not worth it for me to move to Dish for the slight gain in PQ that may very well be wiped out with the more channels and HD programming they add. Besides, Dish does not carry Setanta Sports, and I need that channel. Period.

As I have said before watching HD from DirecTV on my 40" Sony XBR Direct-View looks extremely good to me. So ignorance is definitely bliss. :)

I have the 32" and 36" version of this exceptional TV. DRC (Sony's version of a line doubler) used by this set make everything look much, much better than a regular HD tv. It eliminates scan lines on SD viewing including DVD. To this day I still use it as a reference viewing monitor. My projectors 720p AE900 and the 480p IF 4805 still gives me that HD(but not the maximum quality) look, but I want to see all of its 1920x1080i glory from my collection of HD movies including D-Theater and HD-DVD (sorry Blu ray). Thats why I have my eye on the Sony Pearl. Finally a full rez PJ that I can afford.


DRC = Digital Reality Creation

Those Mean Girls shots look awful. The DishNetwork shot is only ever so slightly better than DirecTV, but nothing to get excited about. I'm very disappointed in the quality of HD that is being offered by these services. I can only hope that when DirecTV moves everything to Mpeg4, things will improve. But, how long will it be until they load so many channels on there that they even reach the limits of what Mpeg4 can accomplish and still look good?

I changed the screenshots so its less awful :)

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

D* AVB 8.22 Mbps
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6024/mrlite1gc5.jpg
E* AVB 10.11 Mbps
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/4862/mrfull1uf8.jpg


If there is no fast motion, light strobes, explosions and bright lights in a movie D* PQ will be alright I guess as long as the bit rate is high enough :confused:

What decoder and player are you using for your screen captures? Both screenshots are soft, soft, soft.

What decoder and player are you using for your screen captures? Both screenshots are soft, soft, soft.

VRD, DGIndex, mpeg-vcr, VLC and WMP with Dscaler video decoder. File size reduced using Photoshop (No way I'm gonna post 6 Mb jpeg files). Anyways my primary aim here is a comparison shots to which some differences are very obvious.

You want to see them sharp your just gonna have to watch them.

It is still possible to see that D*'s version is worse. The differences in the explosion at the back of the car are quite noticeable.

VRD, DGIndex, mpeg-vcr, VLC and WMP with Dscaler video decoder.

No wonder they're so damn soft. We're probably seeing only half the resolution of the actual frame.

Wow. You are definitely missing the point that I'm trying to make here.

The point was made with the first set of screenshots. D sucks more than E which isn't that good to begin with. I wouldn't pay for either one.

No wonder they're so damn soft. We're probably seeing only half the resolution of the actual frame.

Yeah they are not the actual frame. Both have been softened for upload purposes. But esentially he is doing the same thing to both and then compare (the difference will still be there)

Yeah they are not the actual frame. Both have been softened for upload purposes. But esentially he is doing the same thing to both and then compare (the difference will still be there)

Thank you. I couldn't have explained it better.

No way I'm going to upload 6 mb individual files on a high traffic forum like this.

I didn't mean jpeg compression. All the screenshots are soft like the decoder isn't properly deinterlacing and you're getting only half the resolution of the frame.

Regardless of the resolution, look at those blocks!

Bikini Destinations Acapulco

D* 2.31 gb AVB 12.22 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bikini%20Destinations.Acapulco.Dlite.jpg
E*Lite 1440x1080i 2.31 gb AVB 12.19 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bikini%20Destinations.Acapulco.Elite.jpg
E* Full 3.21 gb AVB 17.11 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bikini%20Destinations.Acapulco.full.jpg

D*
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bikini%20Destinations.Acapulco.Dlite2.jpg
E* 1440x1080i
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bikini%20Destinations.Acapulco.Elite2.jpg
E* Full
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/AVSforum/Bikini%20Destinations.Acapulco.full2.jpg

Those backgound water scenes from Bikini Destinations are now blockier and much less PQ detail ever since E* went 1440x1080i at these channel. That extra "pop" in PQ HD is gone. Even my GF notice it while watching these episode using Westinghouse 37" LCD.

No more full bit rate 17 Mbps 1920x1080i HD channels at E* :mad:

Yes, it sucks big time.

When you showed the E* full rate is that from a previous recording done before they switched encoding?

Yes, it sucks big time.

When you showed the E* full rate is that from a previous recording done before they switched encoding?

Yes.

Fantastic Four

D* 6.30 gb AVB 7.69 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDLite/Fantastic%20Four%20Lite.png
E* 7.80 gb 10.24 Mbps
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd9/232691/HDFull/Fantastic%20Four%20Full.png

If you can't see it there, you'll never see it.

If you can't see it there, you'll never see it.

Yup Little macroblocking squares galore. Flames are D*'s enemy.

I guess I feel a little better about switching to Dish from D*, but still, the macroblocking was out of control on Fantastic Four via Dish. I can't believe I'm paying over $70 bucks a month for this crap (if my rebates ever kick in- I've been waiting three months now!).

At least I know Desperate Housewives will look perfect tonight, oh yeah, I forgot, I GET THAT FOR FRICKIN' FREE from my OTA antenna.

The lesser of two evils.

After this month I'm cancelling my premium subs from D*.

HBO and SHOWTIME HD Lite no more.

Saving Private Ryan

D* 11.6 gb AVB 9.17 Mbps
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Saving%20Private%20Ryan.HDLite.0000%20%2805%29.png
E* 16.2 gb AVB 13.32 Mbps
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/8642/savingprivateryanfullhdne8.png

Ok I have two very stupid questions...

1. How do you know what the bit rate is of all these things? Where do you get this information?

2. How exactly do HD movies work? What I mean is , I was under the impression that HD quality needed to be FILMED in HD. I'm sure that 2001 was not filmed as such, so how can you take a lower quality film and just suddenly "change" it to be this great HD quality?

Ok that's it for now.

1. I use tsreader. There are many tools out there.

2. It doesn't have to be shot in HD. Movies shot using film already has all the necessary information to be transferred to HD. Look at the recent showings from HDNETM, WORLDCINEMAHD, FILMFESTHD and MONSTERHD for example. And some of the classic release from HD DVD like The Searchers and Robin Hood.

I'm not going to go any further but use the search function to know more.

For now at higher resolutions such as 4K, film formats (especially IMAX) are the only practical medium for acquisition.

Maybe I'm nuts, but none of those screenshots look even close to what I'm seeing on my 43" Pioneer Elite plasma. [shrug]

Maybe I'm nuts, but none of those screenshots look even close to what I'm seeing on my 43" Pioneer Elite plasma. [shrug]
What is posted are idividual frames of the film. Put in motion its sometimes hard to see. But usually its very obvious.

Those blocks I'll grant you - sometimes where there's VERY fast action, I notice them (only momentarily, though). But those jagged edges and other things? I dunno. The image on my screen looks rock-solid for the most part, with pitch-black blacks, and saturated colors - not the washed out, pixelated crap these shots look like.

Those blocks I'll grant you - sometimes where there's VERY fast action, I notice them (only momentarily, though). But those jagged edges and other things? I dunno. The image on my screen looks rock-solid for the most part, with pitch-black blacks, and saturated colors - not the washed out, pixelated crap these shots look like.


Your comments show exactly why D* and E* think they can they can get away with MPEG4 - anyone who thinks its not lossless (as mpeg2 is compressed as well - but not to the extent of mpeg4) is nuts.


What is posted are idividual frames of the film. Put in motion its sometimes hard to see. But usually its very obvious.


He is exactly right. That is the whole concept that mpeg4 counts on....it happens so fast you cannot make it out.

Those blocks I'll grant you - sometimes where there's VERY fast action, I notice them (only momentarily, though). But those jagged edges and other things? I dunno. The image on my screen looks rock-solid for the most part, with pitch-black blacks, and saturated colors - not the washed out, pixelated crap these shots look like.

Screenshots are uncompromising isn't it? Unmolested from your tv set's video control, scaling and processing.

If you notice a few of us here have both providers and we can A/B them and see the difference in motion or PQ. Sometimes its subtle or not noticeable but most of the time the difference is glaringly obvious. Distracting and plain unwatchable. Just check another AVSer thread about D* The Island broadcast.

Once you understand HD-Lite there is no turning back. You are going to see what we are seeing.

You have been warned :)

Screenshots are uncompromising isn't it? Unmolested from your tv set's video control, scaling and processing.


But that's the problem here. You're showing these screenshots as if THEY're representative of the HDTV quality one would expect to see on their set - which isn't true, even by your own admission. So I don't see what purpose this serves.

After this thread I was watching a hockey game last night in HD, trying very hard to look for this stuff. I could not notice anything. I pressed my nose against the screen, and then yes, I could see it was a little jaggy, but still not even close to the amount shown in these screenshots.

But that's the problem here. You're showing these screenshots as if THEY're representative of the HDTV quality one would expect to see on their set - which isn't true, even by your own admission. So I don't see what purpose this serves.

After this thread I was watching a hockey game last night in HD, trying very hard to look for this stuff. I could not notice anything. I pressed my nose against the screen, and then yes, I could see it was a little jaggy, but still not even close to the amount shown in these screenshots.

Watch "The Island" this Friday night on HBO-HD. All will be revealed! You have to wait till the action scenes start, about 35 minutes into the film.

Watch "The Island" this Friday night on HBO-HD. All will be revealed! You have to wait till the action scenes start, about 35 minutes into the film.


Absolutely. After watching The Island Sunday on HBO-HD I was ready to cancel my service with DIRECTV because it looked so bad. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I would get a huge improvement by switching to Dish Network. On the other hand, there is at least SOME improvement and if they give me a killer deal I might just defect from Direct to Dish.

Sorry, The Island is not my type of film. I did catch part of it while flipping channels, and it looked fine to me. Rock-solid.

Sorry, The Island is not my type of film. I did catch part of it while flipping channels, and it looked fine to me. Rock-solid.

With your logic all channels would look fine to you. Specially if you only flip the HD channels and don't do an objective comparison. That is the whole point of this thread to compare. Don't take it personal but if you can't see it on your TV great. If it looks fine to you great you have one thing less in life to worry about.

But that's the problem here. You're showing these screenshots as if THEY're representative of the HDTV quality one would expect to see on their set - which isn't true, even by your own admission. So I don't see what purpose this serves.

After this thread I was watching a hockey game last night in HD, trying very hard to look for this stuff. I could not notice anything. I pressed my nose against the screen, and then yes, I could see it was a little jaggy, but still not even close to the amount shown in these screenshots.


Sorry, The Island is not my type of film. I did catch part of it while flipping channels, and it looked fine to me. Rock-solid.

To quote the old phrase, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link - and this thread shows the weakest links.

There is no way it can look rock solid when the distribution feed demonstrates the problem.

90% of the people cannot see the rainbow effect with a DLP unit. That doesn't mean its not there. Its been demonstrated over and over.

Even a good set cannot correct the problem shown in this thread. A bad set can somewhat correct by its lack of resolution - so its harder to see the fine details when the problems start (witness the threads about people complaining how much worse SD looks on their HDTV then their old SD set).

Either your eyes or your set (or both) are the weakest link, but clearly you have one.

I'm just saying that you can't view these screenshots with the pretense that this is what you'll see on your actual screen. First of all, these are still images. Secondly, the screenshots haven't gone through a scaler and other settings a TV uses to output the final picture. So it's a bit disingenuous, I think. But nothing personal, I fully understand what you're trying to accomplish and it is clear that DirecTV's HD feed seems to be generally inferior.

Again,a scaler will not fix these problems.

As demonstrated in the other thread, you can see what the final output is on a TV - and its going to be worse - not bettter - if your TV isn't the weakest link.

I can only comment on what I have watched in HD (I have DirecTV). I watched, for instance, the Discovery Atlas episodes and thought they looked great. DVDed Misery recently, and again it was very very solid. Perhaps if I was watching on a huge screen, I'd notice something but I have a 43-inch plasma.

Sorry, The Island is not my type of film. I did catch part of it while flipping channels, and it looked fine to me. Rock-solid.


No offense, but you may need lasik surgery. If you couldn't see the horrible examples of artifacting and macroblocking the only explanation is that you might be losing your sight. It was almost unwatchable.

I was only flipping through it. I saw maybe 10 seconds of it at most. It was a fairly still and calm scene and it looked good. I did not see the other films used as examples here. As I said above, I can only comment on what I've seen. I'd appreciate any Discovery Atlas comparisons, for instance, or of an NHL game.

But that's the problem here. You're showing these screenshots as if THEY're representative of the HDTV quality one would expect to see on their set - which isn't true, even by your own admission. So I don't see what purpose this serves.


... it looked fine to me. Rock-solid.


I saw maybe 10 seconds of it at most. It was a fairly still and calm scene and it looked good.

How can you even begin to say these shots are not representative - or that a movie looked Rock-solid based on viewing it for 10 seconds at the most? That in itself is irresponsible and not a representative sample - not to mention a joke considering your multiple posts of the last 12 hours.

If I were to catch 10 seconds at the most of this movie, I could say it was about High Performance Off Shore Boat Racing, but that would also be inaccurate - and not representative of the movie.

Thanks for taking the time post all those up. I read the first four or five pages, and didn't see much difference until about page four.
I have noticed on my SXRD that DirecTV stuff is not even as good as this time last year - now I see what they've done to it...

Oh yeah, in another year or so, Echo will be just as bad.

Again,a scaler will not fix these problems.

As demonstrated in the other thread, you can see what the final output is on a TV - and its going to be worse - not bettter - if your TV isn't the weakest link.
Nope, not even a noise reduction device like the Algolith Mosquito/Dragonfly will help. You can't un-burn a burnt steak.

How can you even begin to say these shots are not representative - or that a movie looked Rock-solid based on viewing it for 10 seconds at the most? That in itself is irresponsible and not a representative sample - not to mention a joke considering your multiple posts of the last 12 hours.



Exactly. 10 seconds? Who the hell can tell anything from watching 10 seconds of a movie? That's beyond ridiculous.

It should seriously be a crime for these providers to broadcast HD at only 7-10Mbps!!! The max bitrate a DVD can do is around 9'ish, with most doing 4-6Mbps. Compare that to HD-DVD or BluRay at 24-40Mbps! Just because it's at a certain res, doesn't mean it's actually HD. It's a real shame that these providers are sticking it to the consumers; yet most people are too stupid to know anything about it.

It's a real shame that these providers are sticking it to the consumers; yet most people are too stupid to know anything about it.

Why does this surprise you?

Just read this thread and you can find people in full denial - and how many of the "average consumers" actually come to avs?

I only mentioned the 10 seconds because The Island was brought up, so please relax, guys. I've watched other movies and events in HD, obviously, for a more extended period of time. I never observed such artifacting.

Why does this surprise you?

Just read this thread and you can find people in full denial - and how many of the "average consumers" actually come to avs?
It doesn't really surprise me, but it's just sad that these providers are screwing consumers per se.

I only mentioned the 10 seconds because The Island was brought up, so please relax, guys. I've watched other movies and events in HD, obviously, for a more extended period of time. I never observed such artifacting.

Consider yourself privileged.

I only mentioned the 10 seconds because The Island was brought up, so please relax, guys. I've watched other movies and events in HD, obviously, for a more extended period of time. I never observed such artifacting.

Again, you have a weak link somewhere.

Do you even understand that not all frames are created equal or what an I, B or P frame is - and how they are related - and one happens when you base the others off a bad I Frame - especially as HBO and most other providers have a set GOP pattern?

It should seriously be a crime for these providers to broadcast HD at only 7-10Mbps!!! The max bitrate a DVD can do is around 9'ish, with most doing 4-6Mbps. Compare that to HD-DVD or BluRay at 24-40Mbps! Just because it's at a certain res, doesn't mean it's actually HD. It's a real shame that these providers are sticking it to the consumers; yet most people are too stupid to know anything about it.

If they are among the large number of folks who have purchased their first HDTV fairly recently, it's probably not so much stupidiy as it is the lack of a standard of comparison (other than the even more crappy SD signals that they're being provided with). If you haven't ever seen a high quality HD signal, you won't be as likely to notice the crap being transmitted...though you may be more likely to wonder what the "big deal" is about HDTV (this ain't "looking through a window!").

Discovery Atlas Brazil

D* 10.1 gb AVB 12.80 Mbps
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Lite/Discovery%20Atlas%20%20Brazil%20RevealedLite..png
E* 9.22 AVB 13.11 Mbps
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Full%20HD/Discovery%20Atlas%20Full%20%2803%29.png

I avoid sat like the plague. I don't have a horse in that arena but to me it looks quite clear that DirecTV's had is macroblocked whereas Dish is less so. Dish just seems a hair better in most pix and noticably better in the lower ones.

In the store, look at the chick behind near the coke machine, she's all kinds of garbled in the DirecTV pic (top). Makes me kinda glad that I have OTA! :)

Every feed US/Canada consumers have access to, including OTA, is HD-lite. Some is more tolerable than others, but it all pales in comparison to HD-DVD and Blu-ray (except the poorly mastered Sony releases).

HDTV FANatic -

In a previous post you stated that "D* and E* think they can get away with MPEG4".

The MPEG4 I have seen via the HD locals in Chicago on D* are a VAAAASSST improvement from the severely compressed MPEG2 stuff.

Granted, I am in the same boat as you, D* needs to take advantage of their new sats in 2007 and increase bit rates and what not, as its bottom of the barrell right now, however, my thought was that MPEG 4 would be much better than overly pressed MPEG 2. Maybe I am wrong...

HDTV FANatic -

In a previous post you stated that "D* and E* think they can get away with MPEG4".

The MPEG4 I have seen via the HD locals in Chicago on D* are a VAAAASSST improvement from the severely compressed MPEG2 stuff.

Granted, I am in the same boat as you, D* needs to take advantage of their new sats in 2007 and increase bit rates and what not, as its bottom of the barrell right now, however, my thought was that MPEG 4 would be much better than overly pressed MPEG 2. Maybe I am wrong...

http://www.tbo.com/video/xml/MGBN6UPBZRE.html

The follow up now has people all over the market and others with the same issue - and notice how their first statement to the TV station was it wasn't widespread - reporter did her homework and Directv had to backtrack and then admit it was.

http://www.tbo.com/video/xml/MGBN6UPBZRE.html

The follow up now has people all over the market and others with the same issue - and notice how their first statement to the TV station was it wasn't widespread - reporter did her homework and Directv had to backtrack and then admit it was.
Great stuff, thanks for that link. Interesting that even being a reporter still only gets you doublespeak and BS from DirecTV, although that's nothing new, we've had "reporters" post here about DirecTV and it's been the same old crap. Hopefully Stacie Schiable pushes this until there's a real answer/response.

Thanks for that link. Wished she mentioned "HD-Lite".

Thanks for that link. Wished she mentioned "HD-Lite".


The best part is that they actually show the issues on camera - and if it happened that many times when the reporter was there in the home.......

Her follow up which is not online, they got flooded with emails from people after the story aired that had the same issue.....so much for not widespread.

Phantom Of The Opera

D* 9.40 gb AVB 8.00 Mbps
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Lite/The%20Phantom%20of%20the%20Opera%20D.0000%20%2803%29.png
E* 11.10 AVB 10.00 Mbps
http://uploadingit.com/files/8540/Full%20HD/The%20Phantom%20of%20the%20Opera%20E%20%2803%29.png

Every picture set in this thread is so close that my eyes would get sore trying to find the 3 pixels that are worse in one...
Maybe you should just enjoy some HD programming instead of dissecting every frickin' detail, Some of you folks just have wayyyyyyyyyy too much free time on your hands....... :D

Every picture set in this thread is so close that my eyes would get sore trying to find the 3 pixels that are worse in one...
Maybe you should just enjoy some HD programming instead of dissecting every frickin' detail, Some of you folks just have wayyyyyyyyyy too much free time on your hands....... :DMaybe you should stop wasting your time here.

Maybe you should stop wasting your time here.


Just came into the thread expecting to see a valid comparison and there is really little if any difference to nit pick...

apexmi TAKE OFF YOUR SUNGLASSES!!!!

apexmi TAKE OFF YOUR SUNGLASSES!!!!


Sorry, but I see very little difference in your shots side by side.... The little macroblocking can even be picked up in OTA full bit rate CBS broadcasts if you look for it... I use CBS as they require their affaliates to run full bit rate

Check out post #97 War of the Worlds screencaps.

Try downloading two pix of the same scene to your hard drive. Make a new folder put it there, open it then with Windows Picture viewer (its default viewer), use the arrow button to flip bewtween them.

Check out post #97 War of the Worlds screencaps.

Try downloading two pix of the same scene to your hard drive. Make a new folder put it there, open it then with Windows Picture viewer (its default viewer), use the arrow button to flip bewtween them.


I did and as I already stated there is "very little" there is some but not anything significant

Check out post #97 War of the Worlds screencaps.

Try downloading two pix of the same scene to your hard drive. Make a new folder put it there, open it then with Windows Picture viewer (its default viewer), use the arrow button to flip bewtween them.

Xylon,

How big is your screen? The reason I ask is because if you have a 100-120" screen the macroblocking will be very distracting as compared to say my 57" CRT becuase the size of the distortion goes up with the screen size.... :)

YIKES, I can easily see the differences in the pictures; if APEXMI has a hard time seeing it he must have WAY too much sugar in his diet because it's affecting his vision.

YIKES, I can easily see the differences in the pictures; if APEXMI has a hard time seeing it he must have WAY too much sugar in his diet because it's affecting his vision.
Ahh. That's why my contact precription is higher this year! :D

Xylon,

How big is your screen? The reason I ask is because if you have a 100-120" screen the macroblocking will be very distracting as compared to say my 57" CRT becuase the size of the distortion goes up with the screen size.... :)

Its true the bigger the screen the more obvious you will see the macroblocking. But thats not true all the time because if you watch this on your desktop monitor you will still see the problem.

I have a 92" screen with AE900, and other sets.

I use CBS as they require their affaliates to run full bit rate

errr, wrong.

And speak of talking out of both sides of your azz....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9252566&&#post9252566

I remember when I first got D* in '96 the picture was stunning but as the compression has gone up as well as the screen size picture for 95% of the channels is now crap. Weekends even the HD is crap with ST on as they rape all the bandwidth they can... :mad


Hey apexmi:

Maybe you should just enjoy some HD programming instead of dissecting every frickin' detail, as you just have wayyyyyyyyyy too much free time on your hands.......

errr, wrong.

And speak of talking out of both sides of your azz....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9252566&&#post9252566




Hey apexmi:

Maybe you should just enjoy some HD programming instead of dissecting every frickin' detail, as you just have wayyyyyyyyyy too much free time on your hands.......

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.......