Just duplicating Ken's poll, but making it a public poll.

Please vote based on your overall impression of the channels if you've seen them and can offer an evaluation. I've added a few options to try and break down the bulk of the responses from the previous poll in just two of the options.

As Ken said - let's get down to the nitty gritty and tell us what you really think.

I think you forgot to set up the poll?

Took me a minute to set up the options.

I take option 2. I have an OTA local or 2 that do not multicast and their HD is VERY good. What little HD I have seen on the new channels is that good at least. It is a shame I have to work for a living ;(.

I have thought that the MPEG4 locals we get here in Jacksonville are at least the equal of what I get OTA and via Comcast (I have their basic HD package).

The new MPEG4 channels such as Discovery and Smithsonian, when showing true HD are quite good.

The USA HD broadcasts are better than what I get here OTA since our local NBC affiliate has that dumb weather sub-channel. What I've seen of SCI FI HD (a re-run of Bionic Woman and portions of Stargate Atlantis) have also had really good PQ.

I was comparing an older recording of Die Hard from HBO Channel 70 to a recent recording from Cinemax. It seems that the Cinemax channels are filtered a little bit more. It seems as if they are filtering a lot of the grain out of the picture, which makes the picture seem smoother, but also less detailed. Die Hard is not really a good movie to make a comparison with though since it is obviously an older transfer that is extremely noisy and grainy, and perhaps it was Cinemax that was cleaning it up a bit before DirecTV added any noise reduction or filtering. The "Live" channels such as Big Ten and the sports nets look phenomenal.

Among the best HD I've ever seen, from any source. I've never seen OTA broadcasts look this good.
The "Live" channels such as Big Ten and the sports nets look phenomenal.
So then why did you say they look worse than the old MPEG2 channels?

I have been pleasantly surprised and impressed. I'm not sure if it's the best HD I've ever seen, but some of the baseball in particular has really made me sit up.

The improvement for the Sci-Fi channel alone (as noted in another thread) from horrid, worst on DTV, SD to very nice HD is more than worth the wait.

MPEG-4 is very good. I wish they'd show more strobing scenes and other things that were torturous for MPEG-2 so that I could get a larger A/B sample. But what I've seen so far is great. And I find myself going to channels like 206 instead of 73 to make sure I get the nicer HD picture.

I am really pleased with what has been delivered so far. This is looking like the good old days when D* only had like 4 HD channels and everything was getting close to 19.2 (and my OTA locals weren't putting repeats of the news and doppler radar on subchannels).

I find myself going to channels like 206 instead of 73 to make sure I get the nicer HD picture.
206 and 73 are exactly the same. Same goes for the rest of the 70s channels that have duplicates on the SD channel number.

Stargate Atlantis last night was incredible. Much better than OTA. The color was phenomenal, the contrast was deep, the picture was sharp, very little noise, no pixelization.

I'm very impressed.

Just duplicating Ken's poll, but making it a public poll.Sorry about the screwup.

Why even have options for worse than old mpeg2 or the same? You are just feeding trolls.

Gotta cover all the bases. Making it public will make it easy to filter out any hinkey votes.

The HD on TBS' baseball coverage reflects a clear upgrade over the MPEG 2 on ESPN. I was surprised to see such a noticable difference.

It handles fast moving scenes much better. I have been watching some live concerts on MHD with strobing and fast motion and see little to no macroblocking. On the old Mpeg2 channels (even full bitrate) they would have been a macroblocking mess so this at least is a step up. I would tend to agree that they might be slightly less sharp but its hard to tell since I have nothing to directly compare them too side by side. It is a big step up from the current situation on Directv though for sure!

I voted "significantly better than ". The top 3 could scew the results. My OTA is marginally better in most cases. But, the number of sub channels has a lot to do with that. The top option could be chosen by someone who doesn't have an HDDVD or BluRay player. If you have either of those, the satallite channels don't compare. If not and you compare it a BB or CC HD display, you might think you have the best system ever put together.

I get all my locals, including the CW from Directv and they're just as good as my OTA and infinitely better than what I got from Time Warner. The other HD channels surpass anything I've seen before it. I had Voom but grew to hate the lack of content. My neighbor has Dish, and quite frankly his HD channels look as awful as my current Mpeg 2 channels that I have on Directv(specifically ESPN). I love the new content, but I wish Directv would bump channels like ESPN up to the quality level of the new channels.

The new channels look so much better than the old channels its not even close to me. As long as they stay looking this good I will be happy.

One of the two people who voted worse than Mpeg 2 is a Dish subscriber.

Watched "Pirates of the Carribbean Dead Mans Chest" on StarzHD last night it looked amazing! I was just watching "Star Wars Revenge of the Sith" on HBOHD, again...amazing! The baseball on TBS is looking sweet too. I've caught bits and pieces of a few football games on Big10 HD that look great too.

I've looked at Smithsonian & DiscoveryHD and they look great but i'm all about the movies and sports channels!

One of the two people who voted worse than Mpeg 2 is a Dish subscriber.



Surprise surprise! Thus the fun of a public poll.

anyone else get a chuckle out of the vurbano vote?

anyone else get a chuckle out of the vurbano vote?
Yes. If that doesn't quiet down the critics, nothing will.

anyone else get a chuckle out of the vurbano vote?
I voted significantly better than old mpeg2. Your problem with that is what exactly?

I voted significantly better than old mpeg2. Your problem with that is what exactly?

<Voice of Bender>Them's fightin' words...I demand an apology!!!</voice>

Vurbano has been very critical of the MPEG2 channels, not the MPEG4 channels.

I have viewed them on a 92" firehawk with an Epson 800 projector.

And I have now viewed them on a brand new 50" SXRD.

They look good, real real good.

Not the best ever, but close.

Anyone that says they look the same or worse than the old mpeg2 channels, should really get their system checked out.

There has got to be a problem somewhere.

Its amazing, Ive seen no artifacts, macroblocking, green splotches etc. The difference in quality is night and day. Most of the "average" or below quality Ive seen has been due to lighting I think on Smithsonian etc, or just moments during a movie where I think its the transfer thats at fault. D* has gone from being a bad joke PQ wise to very good IMO. USAHD, SCIFIHD, BTNHD, TBSHD and StarzHD are the most impressive to me.

Anyone that says they look the same or worse than the old mpeg2 channels, should really get their system checked out.

There has got to be a problem somewhere.Nope. HD Theater still has the sharpest image on low motion scenes, even though it's plagued by macroblocking and ringing in high motion scenes.

The MPEG4 channels have few artifacts but they're a bit soft by comparison.

You can make almost direct A/B comparisons by watching the HD programs that are broadcast both on HD Theather and the Discovery MPEG4 channels ("Build it Bigger" and a couple of others).

Smithsonian HD is terrible, I haven't seen any program on it that resolves better than a good standard DVD would. Even though I can imagine why people sitting far away think it looks good, because it almost has some sort of surface blur effect that cleans up noise.

I voted a "marginal" improvement overall because although PQ has moved a bit sideways, the lower bandwidth requirement means we can get more good quality channels.

I voted significantly better than old mpeg2. Your problem with that is what exactly?

I think he was referring to your jab at the trolls which is right on.

So then why did you say they look worse than the old MPEG2 channels?
Because there wasn't an option to say that some channels look better than the old ones, while some don't. It looks to me that especially on Cinemax they are filtering the grain out of the movies which creates a very smooth look but also less detailed. Evidently they think that the less grainy is preferred by general pubic, and it is probably a whole lot easier to compress. The "live" channels such as Big Ten and Yes look great, so I would like to split my answer, which is not a choice in the poll.

They need to make ESPN and ESPN2 mpeg4. It's so obvious now that they're not. They look like garbage compared to TBSHD baseball, football on NFL Network and BTNHD.

One of the two people who voted worse than Mpeg 2 is a Dish subscriber.

That figures! :D

The new stations do luck much better than D*'s Mpeg2 stations, but my OTA looks better than the reencoded Mpeg4 stations. They just don't look as sharp as my OTA feeds. My stations come out of Raleigh, NC.

Viewd on a Mits 9" gunned CRT HDTV 65813 and Sharp 720P DLP projector on 106" screen.

The new stations do luck much better than D*'s Mpeg2 stations, but my OTA looks better than the reencoded Mpeg4 stations. They just don't look as sharp as my OTA feeds. My stations come out of Raleigh, NC.

Viewd on a Mits 9" gunned CRT HDTV 65813 and Sharp 720P DLP projector on 106" screen.

I'm viewing the same channels as you. I personally see no difference...unfortunately they look pretty bad via OTA, Time Warner, and via Directv mpeg4. Macroblocking via all sources on NBC and CBS, soft pic on FOX. I don't watch much ABC, so I won't comment on their quality. I don't complain though, because we were one of the first areas with HD. WRAL has been a true pioneer. If I watch local news, I watch them since they've been all HD for many years.

Great quality. Not as good as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, but quite good none the less.

I think it is a night and day improvement in general. Like someone else said, HD Theater is still one of the top channels but I dont know if I'm already getting used to the improved PQ of MPEG4 but there seems to be more macroblocking now on HDT. Maybe its just me but today i was watching a program that had a train speeding by and the PQ went from pristine to crappy in a split second.

In general the PQ is great but I'm not ready to say its better than Bluray or HDDVD yet. That the best right now but D* is coming close.

Because there wasn't an option to say that some channels look better than the old ones, while some don't. It looks to me that especially on Cinemax they are filtering the grain out of the movies which creates a very smooth look but also less detailed. Evidently they think that the less grainy is preferred by general pubic, and it is probably a whole lot easier to compress. The "live" channels such as Big Ten and Yes look great, so I would like to split my answer, which is not a choice in the poll.
So, one channel looks worse and the "margionably better" or "about the same" choices didn't fit better than "they look worse"?

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

So, one channel looks worse and the "margionably better" or "about the same" choices didn't fit better than "they look worse"?

Give me a break. :rolleyes:
The worst part is that the complaint doesn't even have to do with DirecTV, it's Cinemax's issue. So it's a completely unfair vote.

Nope. HD Theater still has the sharpest image on low motion scenes, even though it's plagued by macroblocking and ringing in high motion scenes.

The MPEG4 channels have few artifacts but they're a bit soft by comparison.

You can make almost direct A/B comparisons by watching the HD programs that are broadcast both on HD Theather and the Discovery MPEG4 channels ("Build it Bigger" and a couple of others).

...

I am surprised I am not the only one to notice this, even though I have E* and my comparison was not A/B, but I made a point to watch two NHL HD games on E*'s NHL HD special event channels, and compared them to an HD Hockey game on HDNet, all three played at the same time yesterday.

I noticed the same thing, MPEG4 eliminated motion artifacts almost completely, but while the MPEG2 HDNet feed had visible motion artifacts, slow/still images seemed just a bit more detailed. Again not an A/B comparison so other factors might be at play.

I think it is a night and day improvement in general. Like someone else said, HD Theater is still one of the top channels but I dont know if I'm already getting used to the improved PQ of MPEG4 but there seems to be more macroblocking now on HDT. Maybe its just me but today i was watching a program that had a train speeding by and the PQ went from pristine to crappy in a split second.

In general the PQ is great but I'm not ready to say its better than Bluray or HDDVD yet. That the best right now but D* is coming close.
Its always been there on HT theater, at least for a couple years. D* Mpeg2 HD is a disgrace.

I am surprised I am not the only one to notice this, even though I have E* and my comparison was not A/B, but I made a point to watch two NHL HD games on E*'s NHL HD special event channels, and compared them to an HD Hockey game on HDNet, all three played at the same time yesterday.

I noticed the same thing, MPEG4 eliminated motion artifacts almost completely, but while the MPEG2 HDNet feed had visible motion artifacts, slow/still images seemed just a bit more detailed. Again not an A/B comparison so other factors might be at play.
The HDNet feed probably starts off better to begin with. As a result, it can only look better without all the recompression it's currently getting on the MPEG2 side.

I switched over to the new dish and a HR20 right as the new channels came online...my first view of the new channels was disappointing and I wondering if it was the new box, or the new channels...to my great relief it was just crappy content being shown...after doing more sampling, I was very happy with PQ of most content and channels. I have had OTA over an antenna on my roof for many years, so that is my comparison basis. What I will say is that I LOVE having all the new content to watch on HD, especially Comcast Sports Net and Sci-Fi!!!!!!

I read this poll as rating the HD from all the providers via cable/dish.

I didn't consider Blu Ray and HDDVD in the discussion.

If that is why someone didn't rate the mpeg4 higher, can you please state that?

Yeah I noticed that as well. A big plus is that the mpeg4 channels greatly reduce the motion artifacts. Some shows that in the past would have been a mess have little to no artifacting but I do agree that a slight amount of sharpness has been sacrificed on these new channels. Maybe its filtering they do or maybe its just from the mpeg4 recompression. Overall a big step up though and very close to the best quality out there (other than Bluray or HDDVD)

Significantly better than the old MPEG2 HD channels.

:confused: Here's a question: besides the fact that MPEG4 looks much better than MPEG2 overall, the MPEG2 channels look better on my older rear projection TV connected to the H20 than my DLP set connect to the HR20, both via component. Why? And no, I don't do drugs nor I drink ;)

PS
Coming from TWC, I must admit MPEG2 does not look as good....

Yeah I noticed that as well. A big plus is that the mpeg4 channels greatly reduce the motion artifacts. Some shows that in the past would have been a mess have little to no artifacting but I do agree that a slight amount of sharpness has been sacrificed on these new channels. Maybe its filtering they do or maybe its just from the mpeg4 recompression. Overall a big step up though and very close to the best quality out there (other than Bluray or HDDVD)

Since this is observed on both D* and E* in terms of MPEG4 and MPEG2 comparisons, I wonder the slight less resolution on MPEG4 compared with MPEG2 is something inherent with the compression scheme, or something can be improved on. The elimination of motion artifacts is of course more dramatic than the slight resolution compromise, especially when you consider the resolution difference will probably only be visible on a high grade 1080i native HD set. I haven't checked on my 720p projector but my guess from the past experience is you will not see any resolution degradation on 720p sets even if you look for it very hard.

Excellent poll. We have ~275 D* voters. Makes me wonder why we only have 83 or so D* voters over in the trbarry hardware STB poll, but that is a bit off-topic as they say. I'm currently in D* limbo, having moved, and not having found someone I trust enough to climb onto my roof and mount a dish, but this poll has me moving quicker. What I'd really like to know, but realize it will be quite difficult to determine empirically, is how the quality of these channels changes over time, especially as more channels are added and various engineering decisions are made. I move very slowly, so even in hurry up mode it could be a year before I get a dish on my roof. I just hope I get to experience the MPEG4 delirium also.

I think it is a night and day improvement in general. Like someone else said, HD Theater is still one of the top channels but I dont know if I'm already getting used to the improved PQ of MPEG4 but there seems to be more macroblocking now on HDT. Maybe its just me but today i was watching a program that had a train speeding by and the PQ went from pristine to crappy in a split second.
The resolution on HDT has been increased to 1920 but it appears the bandwidth is the same which causes the massive motion blocking.

I voted significantly better based on the national HD channels. For local they look worse than OTA, which I expected.

I do think they look much better than the mpeg-2 channels. There have been quite a few programs where there was motion blocking on the screen. But there have been a few programs where the PQ was soft, mostly Smithsonian HD. A definite improvement.

During one of the Cubs games I was able to see the sweat on Zambrano's face. I haven't seen that in quite a while on D*

Significantly better than the old MPEG2 HD channels.

A big plus is that the mpeg4 channels greatly reduce the motion artifacts. Some shows that in the past would have been a mess have little to no artifacting but I do agree that a slight amount of sharpness has been sacrificed on these new channels. Maybe its filtering they do or maybe its just from the mpeg4 recompression.MPEG4 (both H.263 and H.264) tends to get softer as you tighten the compression. Particularly if you use a deringing or deblocking form of post processing.

They may be able to sharpen it a bit just by tweaking the post processing, at the expense of more artifacts.

I chose option 3 and I'm sticking to it. Its' what Hdtv should be. I think we are getting to the mountain top. Very good job by dtv thus far. Hope they keep it up.

The MPEG4 channels (most of ‘em) look much better than the MPEG2 versions. One comparison I made, was HBOHD (70) versus HBOWHD (504) for SWIII and the picture was definitely sharper.
The variability of the source material has the most effect on PQ. Much of what we are seeing is content that (I think) was originally compressed via MPEG2, now re-compressed via MPEG4. I have seen some macro blocking on several new channels and believe this is source related rather than MPEG4 issues.
As the networks improve their quality, things can only get better. The History Channel is asleep at the wheel, just providing re-sized SD always stretched :(. The new Smithsonian Channel has good content, albeit too many repeats and a rather soft picture.

I voted, "Marginally better than the old MPEG2 HD channels"

After watching the Stanford v USC game this past weekend in HD on Versus I must say that I voted for the best among any source. I also factored in how my HD locals thru Directv looks. That USC game was the best looking HD I've seen from any source (cable, OTA).

I'm viewing the same channels as you. I personally see no difference...unfortunately they look pretty bad via OTA, Time Warner, and via Directv mpeg4. Macroblocking via all sources on NBC and CBS, soft pic on FOX. I don't watch much ABC, so I won't comment on their quality. I don't complain though, because we were one of the first areas with HD. WRAL has been a true pioneer. If I watch local news, I watch them since they've been all HD for many years.

I'm watching the same channels as you guy and I completely agree with your comment above. The WRAL (CBS affil) runs so many subchannels watching football can be horrendous. Our Fox affil has a soft pic. NBC looks good during shows like Heroes. Our local CW looks this especially on shows like Gossip Girl, Girlfriends and The Game. I also have OTA and I've had TW in the past 9 months and they none of the sources look any different from each other. I also watch on a 57in Mits CRT and a Sharp 720p DLP projector projected onto a 106in screen.

I read this poll as rating the HD from all the providers via cable/dish.

I didn't consider Blu Ray and HDDVD in the discussion.

If that is why someone didn't rate the mpeg4 higher, can you please state that?

That's the way I've read it except for maybe the first option.

After watching the Stanford v USC game this past weekend in HD on Versus I must say that I voted for the best among any source. I also factored in how my HD locals thru Directv looks. That USC game was the best looking HD I've seen from any source (cable, OTA).

Amen about that game. That HD was maybe the best I had ever seen. It was crystal clear!

Ever since we added the MPEG 4 HD Channels I have been getting severe macroblocking and audio dropouts on every HD Channel MPEG 4 & MPEG 2. I've checked the transponder signals on 103(b) and every one was 88 plus.

The local channels were terrible last night. There would be times during the Chicago @ Green Bay game I would see just a green screen (3 min.) / macroblocking (3 min.) / no sound (5 min.) This happened about 10 times thru out the game.

I checked the other local channels and they were doing the same. I even called my friend and he verified.

SmithsonianHD/DiscoveryHD/ScifiHD/ScienceHD all have macroblocking and audio dropouts every 15 min. guaranteed.

Something is definitely wrong with our signal out here in Phoenix, AZ.:mad:

I voted among the best I have have ever seen.


Mainly this is due to the playoffs on TBS. I have hated baseball since a traumatic underhand pitching incident when I was 8 (I'm 40 now). But, like a moth drawn to flame I just keep finding my right hand punching in 247. I also realized that my local HD news (2-WSB/ABC & 11-WXIA/NBC) here, in Atlanta, are not as good as I thought they were. Especially NBC.

As others have noted, D* needs to get ESPN, HDnet et al on to the MPEG sheme as fast as they can. It has been a long, frustrating wait, but now it is oh so satisfying.

Something is definitely wrong with our signal out here in Phoenix, AZ.:mad:
Aside from your HD local channels, which are on a spot beam, you're getting the same signal as everyone else in the country.

I'm watching the same channels as you guy and I completely agree with your comment above. The WRAL (CBS affil) runs so many subchannels watching football can be horrendous. Our Fox affil has a soft pic. NBC looks good during shows like Heroes. Our local CW looks this especially on shows like Gossip Girl, Girlfriends and The Game. I also have OTA and I've had TW in the past 9 months and they none of the sources look any different from each other. I also watch on a 57in Mits CRT and a Sharp 720p DLP projector projected onto a 106in screen.


I have to admit that I watch the NBC station out of Winston Salem WXII. 17.1 has an incredible amount of compression so I don't watch it. WRAL, WTVD and WRAZ all look good to me OTA. I recorded a few shows off of the satellite last week (CSI, Two and a Half Men, and Back to you) They all looked softer to me. In fact I love the film grain in Two and a Half Men. It was all but absent from the MPeg4 feed.

I get all of the locals via OTA out of the triad as well. The triad channels do compress less, in fact the fox affiliate doesn't do any multi casting.

Comparing HDNet to NHL HD is unfair because HDNet is 1080i and NHL probably came from an FSN which is 720p. That's the difference you are seeing with still pictures.

To say that providers can't provide a picture as good as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is ridiculous. I still have some programs on my TiVo from the old days (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King) which no HD-DVD could possibly exceed. It is through the glass perfect HD with no artifacts.

So, I voted for the third option. And like Vurbano, I have been one of the biggest critics of DirecTV in the past. I'm satisfied. Hopefully they free up the compression on other channels as well (and eventually the remaining SD channels).

500 votes in and we have the following:

50% feel it is somewhere "among the best..."
84% feel it is at least "significantly better"

50% feel it is somewhere "among the best..."
84% feel it is at least "significantly better"
If there wouldn't be a 2-yr. commitment, this would be enough to get me on the phone to D* right now to sign up for MPEG4. And I wouldn't even need to call from a pay phone wearing my glasses and mustache disguise. :)

I never sweated anybody's commitment requirement as long as it was prorated.

To say that providers can't provide a picture as good as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is ridiculous.Since they're working with maybe 1/4 of the maximum bandwidth, doing real-time compression, and compressing sources that were already previously compressed, it's not ridiculous at all.

Look closely at any D* HD broadcast (MPEG2 or MPEG4) and you will see small artifacts and lack of detail everywhere. Even average HD-DVDs look better than the best D* HD programs.

The two are in a separate category and shouldn't be compared.

What resolution does DirecTV broadcast the new HD channels in? Is it still the weird 1280x1080 factor?

The Indian's game last night had an absolutely incredible picture...

So is HD-Lite a thing of the past?

So is HD-Lite a thing of the past?

Not if you own Dish. :D

What resolution does DirecTV broadcast the new HD channels in? Is it still the weird 1280x1080 factor?
No, they are sending more than 1280x1080. We have been told 1920, but personally I have no way to confirm that. I will say the resolution on these channels is extremely good if they aren't 1920.

For 720p they are keeping it at 1280x720.

No, they are sending more than 1280x1080. We have been told 1920, but personally I have no way to confirm that. I will say the resolution on these channels is extremely good if they aren't 1920.

For 720p they are keeping it at 1280x720.
Who told us that they were 1920?

Who told us that they were 1920?
Scott G.

And Scott G. is not known as a D* defender so I can believe it. Now if we just had an opt-out feature on the 2-yr. commitment, I could call D* for an upgrade as we speak! :)

Don't hold your breath - the commitments are here to stay if you expect them to heavily subsidize your equipment and installation.

As my face starts turning blue, at some point down the road D* is gonna get desperate with about half a million subs out here with 3lnb dishes or great scott 14 million with 18" round dishes -- most of whom are saying you mean you're forcing me to upgrade!!

At that point, things could get interesting. But I guess I'm dead by then! :)

Scott G.
And he speaks for Directv??? Or has proof??? I dont think so.

And he speaks for Directv???No.
Or has proof???No.

But, that doesn't mean it's not true.

I'll also try to get some info from a trusted source.

Among the best! I don't have HD or BD and the last time i had D* it was crap. Plus i was at a round table pizza watching the Packers/Bears game and i found a new appreciation for my setup :eek: Either they didn't have HD, they didn't set it up right or they're HDTV was garbage.

500 votes in and we have the following:

50% feel it is somewhere "among the best..."
84% feel it is at least "significantly better"

600 votes and both categories up 1% to 51% and 85%.

600 votes and both categories up 1% to 51% and 85%.
How are you getting those numbers? Are you splitting them between the first 2 options and then the next 3 options?

First two "Among the best"
First three "at least significantly better"

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom two groups (excluding "no opinion") don't even count, because they are quite obviously either trolls or blind people. Calling the new channels worse or the same as the MPEG2 channels is so obviously BS that they really shouldn't have even been options in the poll.

Hey all,

I was directed to this thread by another board member. I currently have Cox in So. Calif. and am VERY dissatisfied with their HD lineup, or lack there of. I'm also amazed at their complete lack of knowledge in fixing or using their own product line (Setup, DVR's, signal quality, future additions, etc.)

So, anyways, I'm looking into getting DirectTv and read about all the new HD channels.

Some questions:

Some people talk about "HD-lite" on Dish or Direct TV and that cable has better HD than satellite. True or False? Why? what exactly is the reason for the term "HD-lite"? do you actually notice a difference when watching?

Have any of you had both cable and satellite? Could you give a quick pros/cons of each?

Thanks!

Check your local thread in the Local HDTV forum for specific comparisons. Cable quality varies tremendously across the country.

I'll also try to get some info from a trusted source.
The accuracy of the 1920 number is of great interest to many of us. And what the source says about the anticipated future would be equally important if the 1920 is true.

In other words, given D10 and 11 and current and future projected channels, capacity, known plans, etc., is there any expectations that 1920 would of necessity be reduced based on what's known now???

In other words, given D10 and 11 and current and future projected channels, capacity, known plans, etc., is there any expectations that 1920 would of necessity be reduced based on what's known now???

There is no valid answer to that question. Any answer given, would be subject to change at any time.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom two groups (excluding "no opinion") don't even count, because they are quite obviously either trolls or blind people. Calling the new channels worse or the same as the MPEG2 channels is so obviously BS that they really shouldn't have even been options in the poll.

Polls should reflect people's opinion on both sides of a question and not just what you want to hear.. I guess one could say the same thing about your statement.

Polls should reflect people's opinion on both sides of a question and not just what you want to hear.
Not if people's opinions are wrong. The MPEG4 channels simply do not look worse than the MPEG2 channels. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Not if people's opinions are wrong. The MPEG4 channels simply do not look worse than the MPEG2 channels. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.That's your opinion. Others of us aren't as impressed by the soft picture and see both pros and cons to the PQ of the new channels.

Some channels are also worse than others. Smithsonian HD, for example, looks much worse than MPEG2 HD Lite channels such as HD Net.

That's why they're called opinions: they're subjective, and can't be right or wrong.

Whatever. You guys can have your "no opinion can be wrong" love-fest, and feel good knowing that the options are there. But my OPINION is that they shouldn't be. So practice what you preach, and respect it.

Not if people's opinions are wrong. The MPEG4 channels simply do not look worse than the MPEG2 channels. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Then I guess the poll serves no purpose because your opinion is the only one that matters. :rolleyes:

Then I guess the poll serves no purpose because your opinion is the only one that matters. :rolleyes:
Yep, that's exactly what I said.

Not if people's opinions are wrong. The MPEG4 channels simply do not look worse than the MPEG2 channels. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Sorry, but you clearly dont know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

An opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Just because you are adamant MPEG-4 looks better than MPEG-2 does not constitute a fact.

I personally believe you, and dont doubt it for a second. That doesent make it a fact either though :)

Sorry, but you clearly dont know the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Alright, how about this: if your opinion is that the MPEG4 channels look worse than the MPEG2 channels, I don't care about it and it's invalid as far as I'm concerned.

Alright, how about this: if your opinion is that the MPEG4 channels look worse than the MPEG2 channels, I don't care about it and it's invalid as far as I'm concerned.

That I would agree with 100% :)

Those who voted best HDTV ever seen have obviously never seen MPEG4 broadcasts from the UK or Germany or MPEG2 from Japan or Sweden. The best in the US would get ruined by the worst in those countries.

Hey CPanther, should the "I have no idea ....." people be excluded from the poll percentage numbers? Since they are not actually rating the picture.

Just a thought.
Rudy

Hey CPanther, should the "I have no idea ....." people be excluded from the poll percentage numbers? Since they are not actually rating the picture.
He has been excluding them when he posts the numbers. There is no way to exclude them from the actual numbers up at the top.

Hey CPanther, should the "I have no idea ....." people be excluded from the poll percentage numbers? Since they are not actually rating the picture.

Just a thought.
Rudy
Those numbers aren't counted in the totals given in the thread.

That option is only there for people who shouldn't be rating the channels, but feel they have to inject an opinion in every poll or thread.

I always give an option for the uninvolved to vote so they can get poll results whenever the thread is open instead of needing a separate click.

Those numbers aren't counted in the totals given in the thread.

That option is only there for people who shouldn't be rating the channels, but feel they have to inject an opinion in every poll or thread.
Ohh OK. Because those percentages look funny, since they are including the "I have no idea .. " people. But id there's no way to exclude them then I understand.
I always give an option for the uninvolved to vote so they can get poll results whenever the thread is open instead of needing a separate click.
That's a great idea. I think this particular poll is quite valuable as I'm sure many of us are considering a jump to DirecTV and this information will help along in making the decision.

Thanks to all of you, and of course CPanther.
Rudy

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom two groups (excluding "no opinion") don't even count, because they are quite obviously either trolls or blind people. Calling the new channels worse or the same as the MPEG2 channels is so obviously BS that they really shouldn't have even been options in the poll.

Ummm, no, not a troll, nor blind, just a new subscriber. The HD image quality ranges from marginally better than nothing to OK. It's a very one dimensional image.

There really isn't an option in the poll for somebody like me who has switched from cable. In general I'd say comcast provided better to tons better image quality, esp. on the locals.

Anyhow, it's not a deal killer. While, the HD image quality is borderline, I moved to DirecTv for the selection. And so far, I'll take the degraded HD picture because I prefer more content.

In general I'd say comcast provided better to tons better image quality, esp. on the locals.
Comcast provided better PQ than the new MPEG4 channels?

There really isn't an option in the poll for somebody like me who has switched from cable. In general I'd say comcast provided better to tons better image quality, esp. on the locals.


Clearly one of the blind people referred to earlier!

Comcast provided better PQ than the new MPEG4 channels?

Yep, no doubt about it.

Comcast in my area (SE Michigan) provided a much better HD image than DirecTv ... dramatically better on some channels like FOOD Network and the locals. (Please stress: in my area...maybe in your area the cable provider didn't do so good.)

The DirecTv HD channels frequently get washed out and lose too much detail esp. on monochromatic dark backgrounds (causing a 1 dimensional image).

However, the DirecTv HD channels are still better than SD. Some just barely so but nonetheless better than nothing. The DirecTv HD channels range from DVD quality to somewhat better than DVD quality to (every once in a while) good HD quality.

And, no, I'm not blind.

Comcast in my area (SE Michigan) provided a much better HD image than DirecTv ... dramatically better on some channels like FOOD Network and the locals. (Please stress: in my area...maybe in your area the cable provider didn't do so good.)
Apparently you didn't notice my location. My area is the same as yours, and I have seen HD from Comcast and WOW. Neither provider, in my opinion, is providing a higher quality HD picture than DirecTV. For you to say that Comcast is very clearly better than DirecTV makes me really doubt you. Especially when people have done side-by-side comparisons with DirecTV and FiOS, which is known to pass HD through untouched, and found practically no difference.

could someone comment on HGTV and how much actual hd they show, thanks.

I have thought that the MPEG4 locals we get here in Jacksonville are at least the equal of what I get OTA and via Comcast (I have their basic HD package).


Wait, I'm confused. Aren't the local channels mpeg2 only for now? I live in NY, are they mpeg2 in some areas and mpeg4 in others?

thanks

Wait, I'm confused. Aren't the local channels mpeg2 only for now? I live in NY, are they mpeg2 in some areas and mpeg4 in others?

thanks

NY and LA are the only two markets that have MPEG2 locals, the rest of the country being MPEG4, although, I believe both of those markets also have MPEG4 locals as well now.

NY and LA are the only two markets that have MPEG2 locals, the rest of the country being MPEG4, although, I believe both of those markets also have MPEG4 locals as well now.

If NY and LA have mpeg4 locals now that would be great news. My install is set for thursday and then I will vote after checking out all the HD goodness:D

I would very much like to hear moderators and experts chime in with their conclusions once the poll has reached a satisfactory sampling.

could someone comment on HGTV and how much actual hd they show, thanks.
It's all HD, aside from some late night/early morning infomercials. It's not a simulcast channel.

The DirecTv HD channels frequently get washed out and lose too much detail esp. on monochromatic dark backgrounds (causing a 1 dimensional image).
And, no, I'm not blind.
As unpopular as it is here, I agree with the quote above for most of the movie channels. There is excessive filtering going on to where almost all of the grain is removed from the movies, and I'm fairly sure that a lot of detail is missing as well. Many of you did not see how good HBO looked about 4 years ago when it was full bit-rate on it's own transponder. I was hoping that we would get that kind of quality from the new channels. Even if they are sending out 1920 by 1080, the filtering is flattening the picture so what should be many subtle shades of color are now just being seen as a single color. It's the same on Cinemax, The Movie Channel, MGM, and MPEG4 HBO.
I do think some channels look very good, such as The Big Ten channel. I've been with DirecTV since the beginning of DirecTV, and I do appreciate having all of the channels. Perhaps they can reduce the filtering a bit and I would be thrilled.

I'm really surprised at the lack of "worse than before votes." Both the sound and picture quality are noticably worse for me now. More macroblocking than before.

I've had my system checked out a couple times. I'm still under service plan. The last tech told me that it's just the signal from the satellite.

I'm really surprised at the lack of "worse than before votes." Both the sound and picture quality are noticably worse for me now. More macroblocking than before.

I've had my system checked out a couple times. I'm still under service plan. The last tech told me that it's just the signal from the satellite.

What channels? I haven't seen macroblocking on any of the new MPEG4 channels (not locals).

You get macroblocking on the locals because they were originally in MPEG2, and probably bandwidth starved MPEG2 at some point in the chain from the main company to the local station to DirecTV.

Frankly, the video quality is quite different on all of the channels, and it even varies from show to show on the same channel. And that isn't DirecTV's fault at all. They can't improve on the source material. A poll like this is pretty useless because people will rate what they normally watch. I rated SciFi because the picture quality I saw in Stargate: Atlantis was absolutely breathtaking.

I'm really surprised at the lack of "worse than before votes." Both the sound and picture quality are noticably worse for me now. More macroblocking than before.

I've had my system checked out a couple times. I'm still under service plan. The last tech told me that it's just the signal from the satellite.

Your last tech was being lazy, then. Ask for someone who will actually fix it - and file a formal complaint about the guy that wouldn't. That's the only way we'll be rid of these guys who want to get paid and not actually do proper contract work.

I'm really surprised at the lack of "worse than before votes." Both the sound and picture quality are noticably worse for me now. More macroblocking than before.

I've had my system checked out a couple times. I'm still under service plan. The last tech told me that it's just the signal from the satellite.

You might want to check your set up, I have not seen macroblocking on any of the new MPEG4 channels. I have a rear projector, front projector and a plasma, the picture looks great on all my displays.

What channels? I haven't seen macroblocking on any of the new MPEG4 channels (not locals).

You get macroblocking on the locals because they were originally in MPEG2, and probably bandwidth starved MPEG2 at some point in the chain from the main company to the local station to DirecTV.
I guess I need to clarify. I am talking primarily about locals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they being delivered in MPEG-4 from a new satellite now as well? DirecTV has promised on the phone and in person numerous times that my locals would clear up significantly by Sept/Oct when they move to the new satellite. They have gone from "noticably worse than Comcast" on the old satellite, to now "noticably worse than the old satellite." Some shows no longer deliver in DD when they did on the old satellite. And the compression artifacts have significatly increased. I also lose signal altogether for brief periods now, which never happened before.

I recognize now that I'm fairly unique in this circumstance, but that doesn't change anything for me.

For the new lineup, though, I would vote that they are better than before but still worse than when I had Comcast a few months ago.

Your last tech was being lazy, then. Ask for someone who will actually fix it - and file a formal complaint about the guy that wouldn't. That's the only way we'll be rid of these guys who want to get paid and not actually do proper contract work.
I understand what you're saying, but I can't dedicate my life to it. I've had D* for a few months and I've spent way too many hours on the phone with them. Missed appointments, install problems, billing problems, never got my free gift, etc. I've talked to customer retention and every other dept. I can find. Two of them have transferred me into 1.5 hour+ hold queues (and I'm always polite and patient, so I don't deserve it). I've talked specificaly about the PQ issues too many times with them. I've lodged a complaint about a tech once - D* transferred me to the local contractor, who then gave me a sob story about I was taking money out of his employee's pockets. This is getting off-topic, though. Point is that I've done all those things you've suggested. I've had unusually bad cust. service experience and unusually bad PQ.

Have you contacted your local affiliates and let them know about the PQ from D*? D* wont care unless more people complain about it.

You might want to check your set up, I have not seen macroblocking on any of the new MPEG4 channels. I have a rear projector, front projector and a plasma, the picture looks great on all my displays.
D* HR20-100 direct to a Sony KV-34HS420 over HDMI and to an Onkyo TX-SR303 over Toslink. Same setup as with Comcast, except it was a Motorola 3416 STB and the Onkyo was an older but very similar model. But the newer channels are better. Some compression (more than Comcast was here), but much less noticeable. The locals are my main concern. I've purchased an antenna and got that going instead, but I would have rather not had to go with that.

Have you contacted your local affiliates and let them know about the PQ from D*? D* wont care unless more people complain about it.
I may try that, thanks.

Forgive me for bumping a contentious thread, but I was hoping that moderators and industry pros might weigh in on the results.

Forgive me for bumping a contentious thread, but I was hoping that moderators and industry pros might weigh in on the results.
You're not forgiven. Let the thread die, it has run its course.