can anyone tell me out of cable and blu ray, which one has the best picture quaility. I have a few hdtv channels and they look great. I was wondering if a movie in a blu ray player looks much better than say HBO or Showtime HD movies. i know PQ differs on every movie, but overall, does blu ray just kill cable hdtv when it comes to PQ. or do they come from same source and have equal PQ.

I've had HD DirectTV for almost a year and just got my Blu-Ray player (a PS3) a week ago. In my experience with watching HD broadcast movies, the static shots look great but anything with fast camera movement or action gets pixelated, even on the highest-quality channels like HBO or Showtime. That doesn't happen on Blu-Ray (at least not that I've seen so far). Also, there's usually a lot less noise in the image on a Blu-Ray disc.

In practice it's not a completely apt comparison, but think of standard DVD vs. standard cable/satellite. They're technically the same resolution (480i) but DVDs invariably look better, usually much better.

Overall I wouldn't say Blu-Ray absolutely blows HD broadcasts out of the water; it's an incremental increase in PQ, just like HD broadcast is an incremental increase over DVD; but for people who pay attention it's a noticeable one.

Overall I wouldn't say Blu-Ray absolutely blows HD broadcasts out of the water

I would...especially on some channels (hello Fox?)...and by a far margin...
What Nick is alluding to are compression artifacts. Algorithms have to work much harder on moving material (and with limited available space). You won't see this kind of error in a blu ray disc and once you get used to life without compression artifacts you'll never go back.

I'm sure screen size has much to do with it as well. I don't know what Nick is watching on...on my 92" projection screen, the differences are glaringly obvious (and some stuff is borderline unwatchable)...granted its less so on my 42" plasma. However, once your eye is trained to pictures without such problems, seeing the differences become painfully obvious.

And its not the compression algorithms used - I've seen MPEG-2 look astounding...these are conscious decisions broadcasters.

I guess in the end it depends on your provider, the particular signal, your local affiliates, your sensitivity, your screen size, and your equipment. That said, I still believe that life in the blu ray realm, even on the best of cable, satellite, and over the air days (I've had them all), is still superior.
here is a position piece about this:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=82&article_id=2061&page_number=1&print_page=y

I have Verizon FIOS TV. The HD PQ is excellent. Verizon does not compress their signal, so the quality of the HD depends on the source. I find the picture on my BD player and my cable picture to be the same if the cable source is good.

I have Verizon FIOS TV. The HD PQ is excellent. Verizon does not compress their signal, so the quality of the HD depends on the source. I find the picture on my BD player and my cable picture to be the same if the cable source is good.

Currently you cannot get a BD quality HD picture from any channel-delivery system. See this:

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6497

The other issue is sound. In my opinion, the high def sound that you get from Blu-Ray blows away cable HD and is an even greater difference then the PQ. Combined, the sound and picture quality of blu-ray makes for a much more theatre like experience compared with cable HD. For some transfers, it just blows you away!

Currently you cannot get a BD quality HD picture from any channel-delivery system. See this:

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6497

You beat me to it.
Another item of note...just because Verizon doesn't compress doesn't mean that they aren't getting an overly compressed signal from the source.

I'm sure screen size has much to do with it as well. I don't know what Nick is watching on...on my 92" projection screen, the differences are glaringly obvious (and some stuff is borderline unwatchable)...granted its less so on my 42" plasma. However, once your eye is trained to pictures without such problems, seeing the differences become painfully obvious.

I'm watching on a 47" Panasonic 1080i RPTV. I'm not saying I don't see differences, just that they're often subtle (except when the really nasty artifacting rears its head).

I agree. I think my PS3 consistently outshines hd cable.

You beat me to it.
Another item of note...just because Verizon doesn't compress doesn't mean that they aren't getting an overly compressed signal from the source.

I'm also pretty sure Verizon is compressed.

Correct me if i'm wrong but Verizon = QAM = MPEG-2.

Blu Ray in my opinion is in a league of it's own. I compare HD movies on Comcast to Blu Ray movies I currently own, and I think it outshines HD Cable every time!

Any HD disc format is going to kill home cable/satellite quality. Hell, half the time you likely aren't getting 1920, more like downconverted 1440 or 1280. Sure, it's 1080i, but they are robbing the horizontal resolution. Since space is at a premium, you will be lucky to get high teens in sustained bitrate.

Your BD player is killing your HBO feed...

MEC2

...even on the highest-quality channels like HBO or Showtime...

Just FYI, except for the HBO west feed those channels aren't the highest quality feeds DirecTV has. The new MPEG-4 channels like Discovery HD and The Science Channel HD are. But I pretty much agree with everything else you said.

The video and audio of Blu-Ray (and HD DVD) are much better than what you'd get watching the same thing from any content provider.

IMO, blu-ray/HD-DVD is what justified my purchase of a big-ass TV. It really is the pay-off in my opinion. HD cable is OK, but it's so variable in quality, that half the time, I don't know what the hell I'm actually watching.

TimeWarner is my cable service provider. I ABSOLUTELY HATE CABLE PSEUDO HD (even associating the crap they stream with the word "HD" IMHO is false advertisement). TimeWarner's HD is SO freaking compressed, watching any fast action movie or sports shows, I saw nothing but MPEG compression blocks (it's like listening to 32kbs MP3s vs CD). HD Media is still the way to go, heck even upscaled DVD looked much better than super low bit rate HD signal from TimeWarner.

Blu-ray absolutely pulverizes Cox HD. I thought all my Cox HD channels looked awesome before I got the PS3. I still really like my HD channels and they destroy the SD channels. But in comparison to Blu-ray, well there is no comparison.

I have to say that I changed to FIOS from Cablevision, in anticipation of zero compression artifacts, and have to say am disappointed. I see no substantial improvement over cablevision HD, and the far fewer HD channels I now get, really makes me consider switching back.

I wonder as those of you who say they see no compression artifacts, maybe I should be in communications with Verizon, as somethiing may be wrong?

However someone mentioned that the compression artifecst may be a result of the source material from the networks...

But back to the topic, I find Blu-Ray IQ far superior, if only from the complete absense of compression artifacts...

What a pain.

When you do gauge your expectations of how much improvement there may be from SD-DVD use your other existing HD sources for comparison to what your current SD-DVdD gives you. This will give you a pretty good idea of what to expect improvement wise.

More compression over HD cable. Although very good, still not Ble-ray or hd-dvd.

I wonder as those of you who say they see no compression artifacts, maybe I should be in communications with Verizon, as somethiing may be wrong?



What a pain.

Verizon has far less compression artifacts than reg cable,but most fast motion stuff gets a little bit,

if you are experiencing lots id call

most of my friends cannot tell a difference between some fios HD cable channels and blu ray

Ok, I guess either I have a problem or I am far more sensative to it, because I see it on practically every action scene I watch. Worse on some channels though, TNTHD being the worst i've seen.

IMO HD programming is shot/geared to look "better" than some BD movies. Older films aren't really made to utilize the 3D effects that HD programming uses

I will always love the 16x9 full screen ratio of HD programming. I'm not a big fan of 2:35:1 OAR films, I always feels like I'm losing out on so much of the picture space, even if it's how the director intended it to be seen.

BD beats HD programming in terms of it's consistent quality, but the "wow" I was expecting to get from BD was def watered down by having HD programming already.

Joe

Are you kidding me? I would much rather watch upscalled DVD on my system than any HD-Lite. I can't stand the MPEG artifacts with motion and sound on DVD is better. Just got PS3 and cant wait to try it out.

I have the xbr4 and a sony b-ray player. Monster cables hdmi also. When i watch potc in hd broadcast,blue ray or a old dvd it looks great. i really can't see too much of an improvement from the hd and old dvd to the blue ray disc. is this normal or should it be a night and day difference when you pop the br disc in.

I'm going to give this thread a friendly bump because I want to say something regarding this topic. Does anyone notice that the picture in HD cable tends to "pop" more than the picture on BDs? While I notice that BDs are slightly sharper than HD cable and use less compression, the colors don't pop the same way. I guess it's because HD cable artificially enhances the picture while Blu-ray shows the picture exactly the way the director intended it to be shown. So, if the director intends to have dull colors in a movie, that's what you'll get on BD.

I'm going to give this thread a friendly bump because I want to say something regarding this topic. Does anyone notice that the picture in HD cable tends to "pop" more than the picture on BDs? While I notice that BDs are slightly sharper than HD cable and use less compression, the colors don't pop the same way. I guess it's because HD cable artificially enhances the picture while Blu-ray shows the picture exactly the way the director intended it to be shown. So, if the director intends to have dull colors in a movie, that's what you'll get on BD.

Sounds like a calibration issue to me.

larry

Broadcasters' HD Squeeze Play

Stations weigh picture quality versus multicasting opportunities

By Glen Dickson -- Broadcasting & Cable, 7/6/2009 2:00:00 AM EDT

For years, broadcasters have told consumers seeking the best high-definition picture quality to use an antenna to receive signals over-the-air, instead of relying on a cable or satellite operator to deliver the programming.

That's because many multichannel operators have recompressed, or “rate-shaped,” broadcasters' HD video to reduce the bandwidth needed to pass along the signal. For example, a cable operator might receive an 18 megabit-per-second HD stream at the headend and recompress it to 15 Mbps before passing it down the pipe. So, receiving the signal directly over-the-air would ensure that the viewer got exactly what the station transmitted.

But increasingly it is local broadcasters, not multichannel operators, that are degrading their hi-def picture quality. The culprit is multicasting, i.e., transmitting digital subchannels alongside the primary HD stream within a station's 19.4 Mbps digital TV pipe. While such subchannels are finally starting to gain traction and generate meaningful revenues (see Station to Station, June 22), many are doing so at the expense of the high-definition images that were the primary impetus for the DTV standard. Engineers and HD aficionados note, with considerable irony, that while there is far more HD content available today, the relative picture quality may not be as good as the first HD broadcasts more than a decade ago.

*SNIP*

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/307399-Broadcasters_HD_Squeeze_Play.php

Sounds like a calibration issue to me.

larry

I have the same calibration on all my inputs on my TV.

I know it can't be me because I heard from reviews and some of my friends that the new "Ghostbusters" BD is really grainy. Now, I've never seen any HD content on cable that's grainy. How do you explain that? If it's DNR, then HD cable does a pretty good job at it because the detail is still all there.

I have the same calibration on all my inputs on my TV.

I know it can't be me because I heard from reviews and some of my friends that the new "Ghostbusters" BD is really grainy. Now, I've never seen any HD content on cable that's grainy. How do you explain that? If it's DNR, then HD cable does a pretty good job at it because the detail is still all there.

O Brother... another one of those.

Grain is the new black bar I guess.

O Brother... another one of those.

Grain is the new black bar I guess.

I'm not complaining. I'm just wondering why HD cable tends to look "prettier" than BDs. Maybe they're doing a better job encoding the HD video for TV broadcast.

I have the same calibration on all my inputs on my TV.

I know it can't be me because I heard from reviews and some of my friends that the new "Ghostbusters" BD is really grainy. Now, I've never seen any HD content on cable that's grainy. How do you explain that? If it's DNR, then HD cable does a pretty good job at it because the detail is still all there.

All the inputs...

What input method are you using for your cable box, what input method are you using for BD?

I'm not complaining. I'm just wondering why HD cable tends to look "prettier" than BDs. Maybe they're doing a better job encoding the HD video for TV broadcast.

"Prettier" is quite subjective. What you find pretty I may find revolting.

You don't see grain in the broadcast version because they compressed the hell out of it. And what was left was dnr'd to death.

I have the same calibration on all my inputs on my TV.

I know it can't be me because I heard from reviews and some of my friends that the new "Ghostbusters" BD is really grainy. Now, I've never seen any HD content on cable that's grainy. How do you explain that? If it's DNR, then HD cable does a pretty good job at it because the detail is still all there.

Your display, your eyes or your viewing distance may be inadequate. I've seen plenty of HD broadcasts w/ grain on HDNet and the now gone Voom movie channels. If you used an antenna, you could easily see the grain in "Chuck" and "24"! Those are two grainy shows.

What input method are you using for your cable box, what input method are you using for BD?
I'm using "Standard" on all inputs with some minor adjustments. I lowered the contrast a tad to put less stress on my eyes and I increased the brightness to uncrush some of the black levels.

You don't see grain in the broadcast version because they compressed the hell out of it. And what was left was dnr'd to death.
Really? The detail is still all there, though. I don't notice the DNR or compression taking away the sharpness in the picture.

I'm using "Standard" on all inputs with some minor adjustments. I lowered the contrast a tad to put less stress on my eyes and I increased the brightness to uncrush some of the black levels.


Really? The detail is still all there, though. I don't notice the DNR or compression taking away the sharpness in the picture.

And standard means what? Composite, HDMI, DVI?

And standard means what? Composite, HDMI, DVI?

Oh sorry. I thought you meant calibration mode.

HD cable is hooked up via Component. DVD and Blu-ray are hooked up via HDMI.

Oh sorry. I thought you meant calibration mode.

HD cable is hooked up via Component. DVD and Blu-ray are hooked up via HDMI.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/movies/movieimages/007_f_oracle.jpg
Bingo!

I thought this was the case. Component is send an analog signal to your TV which is them being reprocessed into digital form. Component can have a tendency to oversaturate colors which may be causing this "pop" that you are talking about. I have seen the same with even with D-sub versus HDMI.

The thing is you need to calibrate for one of the other.... or get an hdmi switch like the one on monoprice.

Bingo!

I thought this was the case. Component is send an analog signal to your TV which is them being reprocessed into digital form. Component can have a tendency to oversaturate colors which may be causing this "pop" that you are talking about. I have seen the same with even with D-sub versus HDMI.

The thing is you need to calibrate for one of the other.... or get an hdmi switch like the one on monoprice.

When watching OTA content using the ATSC tuner, the picture still pops. It could be the HD stations that are the ones choosing to oversaturate the colors.

I have an extra HDMI port. I have three actually, so I have one more free port left. I choose not to hook my Cable box via HDMI because majority of channels are SD and the STB does a poor job de-interlacing and upscaling SD content. Since the STB can't output 480i via HDMI, I have to use Component to get better picture on SD channels. And besides, I like the "pop." :D

I have the same calibration on all my inputs on my TV.


That would be the problem, if anything the gamma might change giving you more pop simply because it was no longer tracking 2.2. But color "accuracy" will be different from channel to channel, even program to program.

Component can have a tendency to oversaturate colors which may be causing this "pop" that you are talking about.

No it doesn't! That's hilariously wrong! My post-calibration dE's for grayscale, primaries and secondaries are the same between component and hdmi. That means that white, red, green, blue, yellow, magenta and cyan are all close to the Rec 709 values for saturation, hue and brightness through either connection.

No it doesn't! That's hilariously wrong! My post-calibration dE's for grayscale, primaries and secondaries are the same between component and hdmi. That means that white, red, green, blue, yellow, magenta and cyan are all close to the Rec 709 values for saturation, hue and brightness through either connection.

(Why do people have to be rude in there responses? No it doesn't! That's hilariously wrong!

perhaps not on yours, but it does on mine. it really depends on the display and the devices used I guess.

both component and d-sub have their colors oversaturated on my display. When I calibrate them to spec they are fine. The problem, depending on your set, is that you may not have independent settings for inputs. It is often a "one size fits all".

I still prefer HDMI. I dropped cable though because I just didn't like the quality. Many sports and live events were oversaturated. Many movie stations had theirs I guess overcompressed and dulled out (under saturated).

Thinking back, this was my biggest qualm with HD cable was the inconsistancy between channels.

I now just use OTA HD through my HTPC, BDs & HD DVDs and upscaled DVDs (used to use my Onkyo HD805... now just my HTPC for that)

I switched to optical for one reason... I wanted the best picture for my shows and movies. It is also more convenient as well for the most part. I rewatch movies alot, but spaced out. So maybe LOTRs once per year or so.

I used to watch movies that I was unsure about on netflix watch instantly or hd cable only be underimpressed with the PQ. I would later rewatch them again in the better format... but it wasn't the same.

It is a personal choice though. I am not saying I don't watch OTA. I watch Fringe, Law and Order and such on my HTPC recorded on W7, but some shows I still watch on disk even if I am a season behind (like Smallville, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate Atlantis ...)

I dropped cable too. What I am curious about is comparing OTA HD to blu ray. Anyone?

I dropped cable too. What I am curious about is comparing OTA HD to blu ray. Anyone?

Blu-ray far surpasses OTA HD. The latter is too soft and sometimes suffers from compression artifacts.

Blu-ray far surpasses OTA HD. The latter is too soft and sometimes suffers from compression artifacts.

I think OTA is close depending on the display of course. It can't touch the sound and the colors are richer on bd. There is definitely smoother motion in fast moving scenes.

The other problem with OTA... sometimes is a little jitter depending on your location.

Of course, there is more to it than just PQ if we are talking about movies and TV shows. The lack of commercials is a plus. What is also a plus is all the extras you get with BD. I really enjoy going back and listening to the commentaries on pivotal shows of Lost.

I think OTA is close depending on the display of course.

I strongly disagree, the low bitrate leads to lack of detail and mpeg2 compression artifacts, especially during motion that makes even dvd look better than OTA HD. That's independent of display, it's simply bad source. It's certainly a big step up from OTA and cable sd, but it doesn't come remotely close to blu-ray quality.

I strongly disagree, the low bitrate leads to lack of detail and mpeg2 compression artifacts, especially during motion that makes even dvd look better than OTA HD. That's independent of display, it's simply bad source. It's certainly a big step up from OTA and cable sd, but it doesn't come remotely close to blu-ray quality.

Not necessarily true. OTA HD broadcast is either in 720p or 1080i depending on the channel. Those resolutions are about half of what is required for 1080p. If you tried to send 1080p over the air, then yes would get artifacts galore... not so much with OTA HD.

What you could be seeing is more an artifact caused by the tuner than the source perhaps?

OTA transmits at about 20Mbit/s. Bluray is 40mbit/s. With the latter you a tracking 2,073,600 pixels. With 720p, you are tracking 921,600. With 1080i, you are tracking half the 1080i pixels.

So is it really the bitrate?

The difference is really between 720p/1080i and 1080p. There is an argument to made that most folks won't see a difference between 720p and 1080p depending on the size of their display. You can make an even better argument between 1080i and 1080p for most presentations.

Take into account the displays as well. There are a ton of 720/768p displays out there. There are a ton of 1080i displays still in homes. My dad has not plans to replace his 62" 1080i DLP in the near future.

Even the extreme cases. I project on a 96" screen with my 720p projector. I will upgrade to 1080p within a year or so(maybe the infocus or epson), but 1080p projectors are just now approaching the price range that even most of us here at avsforum are will to spend to upgrade. I personally would like to see them at $1000 before I will jump.

I still think my 720p looks better than my local theater's film ... unless they have it hooked up to the digital projector. They only have one or two and it is usually hooked up to some kid 3d movie. I was a little ticked Transformers 2 was on film.

But HD cable can be hit or miss I guess. Their OTA equivalents were better than many of their "premium" channels. Furthermore, the on demand on some were horrendous. In fact, many look more like poorly upscaled DVDs than HD broadcasts. Rocky in HD especially comes to mind.

I personally think what makes OTA HD shine the best is sports... in peticular MLB. My Phillies look amazing in HD.

From experience, I can honestly say Lost DVD does not look better than OTA HD when upscaled on both my HTPC and DV-HD805 and you will be hard pressed to find a better upscaler. That being said, Lost BD is very good and a little better, but not as much as you make it out to be.

OTA transmits at about 20Mbit/s. Bluray is 40mbit/s. With the latter you a tracking 2,073,600 pixels. With 720p, you are tracking 921,600. With 1080i, you are tracking half the 1080i pixels.

So is it really the bitrate?

Okay
(1) 1080i60 is equivalent to 1080p30, which is actually higher than bd's 1080p24, so you can't really half the pixels, it doesn't work that way.
(2) OTA hd uses mpeg2, bd uses avc. So it's not only double the bitrate for less full frames, but it uses a codec that's much better at compression.

I still think my 720p looks better than my local theater's film ... unless they have it hooked up to the digital projector. They only have one or two and it is usually hooked up to some kid 3d movie.

No doubt, on the film it's usually too dark, the gamma is way too high, it might even be out of focus, jeez terrible but the dlp's at the theater are sweet!

I was a little ticked Transformers 2 was on film.

Ah I got to see it on one of the local theater's dlps, it was pretty cool. Just you wait until blu-ray, you'll see it's pretty cool.

But HD cable can be hit or miss I guess. Their OTA equivalents were better than many of their "premium" channels. Furthermore, the on demand on some were horrendous. In fact, many look more like poorly upscaled DVDs than HD broadcasts. Rocky in HD especially comes to mind.

Yeah I hate that! I'll record a movie and then wish I had not used the space when I see it is merely sd.

From experience, I can honestly say Lost DVD does not look better than OTA HD when upscaled on both my HTPC and DV-HD805 and you will be hard pressed to find a better upscaler. That being said, Lost BD is very good and a little better, but not as much as you make it out to be.

Well actually thought that the Lost dvds had too much EE applied, in that case both HD OTA and bd trumped it easily. I agree with with you that sports looked the best on HD.

(2) OTA hd uses mpeg2, bd uses avc. So it's not only double the bitrate for less full frames, but it uses a codec that's much better at compression.

Check again. BD uses a combination of 3 different codecs. 55.1% AVC, 28.8% VC-1 and 15.7% Mpeg2.

Seems we agree on most else.

I am not saying BD is not better... it just isn't as night and day better than OTA HD in comparison to HD Cable/ DVD / HD-lite online etc.

(2) OTA hd uses mpeg2, bd uses avc. So it's not only double the bitrate for less full frames, but it uses a codec that's much better at compression.

Check again. BD uses a combination of 3 different codecs. 55.1% AVC, 28.8% VC-1 and 15.7% Mpeg2.

Seems we agree on most else.

I am not saying BD is not better... it just isn't as night and day better than OTA HD in comparison to HD Cable/ DVD / HD-lite online etc.

I think the reason HD Cable is so much worse than OTA HD and BD is greed. They are so busy trying to sell everyone on the HD Cable and High Speed internet, that they are overpromising more than they can deliver currently and have to over compress in order to fit it within their bandwidth.

Okay if we're going to split hairs, fine avc is used for the most part because the early transfers mostly used mpeg2 and vc-1 and they are not as good as the transfers today.

Excepting some garbage from a few years ago, blu-ray completely kicks ota hd in the butt.

Mahler-

Have you actually watched much OT HD? Just curious. "Far surpasses" seems like a stretch, but then my display is 720p and only 32 inches.

There is also a non technical factor that favors OT HD. Its free.

Get a piece of wire and some cable, stick it on the wall above your tv, and boom, PQ as good as, and better, than your neighbors comcast/directtv signal. No monthly bill. How sweet is that.

Yeah of course I watch a few tv shows on ota hd every week.

can anyone tell me out of cable and blu ray, which one has the best picture quaility. I have a few hdtv channels and they look great. I was wondering if a movie in a blu ray player looks much better than say HBO or Showtime HD movies. i know PQ differs on every movie, but overall, does blu ray just kill cable hdtv when it comes to PQ. or do they come from same source and have equal PQ.
I don't know about cable as I have Dish but both satellite and Blu-ray offer stunning PQ and I throughly enjoy both. So, in my case, which media has the "best PQ" is totally meaningless.

OTA is 20Mbps? Have we forgotten the Livewell fiasco? For a handful of CBS stations it is but just about everyone else multicasts. It looks great when there's little movement but macroblock city when the action starts.

OTA is 20Mbps? Have we forgotten the Livewell fiasco? For a handful of CBS stations it is but just about everyone else multicasts. It looks great when there's little movement but macroblock city when the action starts.

I thought someone might bring that up. Has anyone watched nbc's other channel. I think it is in CD (crap definition) and probably doesn't take much bandwidth at all.

You can slam OTA all you want, but it really impressive for something that is FREE.

For some channels it's hd, hd, sd but for many it's hd, sd, sd. Digital sd channels use little bandwidth so when it's hd, sd, sd no big deal. When it's hd, hd, sd you usually end up with about 14-17 Mbps, which is why you usually talk about hd channel bitrate as a range from 14-20 or so.

For some channels it's hd, hd, sd but for many it's hd, sd, sd. Digital sd channels use little bandwidth so when it's hd, sd, sd no big deal. When it's hd, hd, sd you usually end up with about 14-17 Mbps, which is why you usually talk about hd channel bitrate as a range from 14-20 or so.

But even that is pretty good as it doesn't need the full bit rate. My HD DVDs looked fine using a much lower bitrate.

For the most part, bit rate doesn't matter as much as most people make it out to be (unless you overcompress to the extreme like many studio websites or netflix). My first software player for HD DVD was nero showtime. It allows you to see the bandwidth graph as you watch it. Just like any compression format, spikes most often happen during fast action scenes. Most TV programming takes place is within rooms or stationary scenery with little action (budget).... even Heroes.

Where you will lose quality are on in faster motion scenes, but you could make the argument that if you are going to lose detail, the motion scenes are where you want it as it would be less noticeable (since everything is in motion).

A show like BattleStar Galactica would benefit... but then again BSG isn't available on OTA anyway so it is a mute point. Think about the shows that are on. Will Oprah, Dr Phil, Judge Judy or even Law and Order really vary that much between OTA and BD PQ wise. Even Heroes and Lost use mostly relatively still scenes. One show that I think may take advantage of it would be Fringe as it does have quite a bit of motion... maybe ER as well.

Of course, the biggest downside of BD is that you have to wait so long before it is released on disk. And by then, is it really worth spending an extra $60 per season after you have already scene it... so it is a mute point again.

So I don't think the argument for OTA HD versus BD is really all that relevant as there are so many other factors that are involved. And again in the end, how many programs are really even worth upgrading to BD for? The office, 30 Rock... for me no when I can watch it for free and record it on my htpc in HD. If they ever show a movie, it is usually very dated and in SD anyway. Same with older shows like Seinfeild which is basically just upconverted SD.

I have a hard enough time justifying spending so much more on BD lost than SD when my upconverter makes the DVD look so good as it is let alone comparing OTA HD versus BD.

The argument for HD Cable versus bluray is very relevant as movies are often released simultaneously. The obvious advantage of Cable is the convenience.

I remember watching Rocky in HD versus Rocky on BD (or HD DVD) when it was re-released and the disk was so much better. There are other shows as well.

You seem to think that compression only matters for fast motion scenes, which is simply untrue. Compression artifacts rear their ugly heads for alot of material, not just those with fast motion.

To put this into perspective, the bitrate for ota hd is typically double what a good dvd bitrate is, but it has more than quadruple the resolution (meaning that it needs a higher bitrate to handle it)and uses the same codec! You see the bitrate is simply not where it needs to be.

Logically ota hd is inferior to bd. My experience confirms that as well.

You seem to think that compression only matters for fast motion scenes, which is simply untrue. Compression artifacts rear their ugly heads for alot of material, not just those with fast motion.

To put this into perspective, the bitrate for ota hd is typically double what a good dvd bitrate is, but it has more than quadruple the resolution (meaning that it needs a higher bitrate to handle it)and uses the same codec! You see the bitrate is simply not where it needs to be.

Logically ota hd is inferior to bd. My experience confirms that as well.

Once again, that is not true. It has 2.5 times the rate (720p). 80% of the time, BD bitrate is below 20Mbits. I fully understand compression and have been compressing since VCDs were out. When I say fast motion, I don't just mean motion of actors but also backgrounds, hency why fringe and er would be higher.

What exactly are you missing for OTA shows. Do you really need to see 30 Rock or My name is Earl in 1080p instead of 1080i?

Where you will lose quality are on in faster motion scenes, but you could make the argument that if you are going to lose detail, the motion scenes are where you want it as it would be less noticeable (since everything is in motion).The negative effects of OTA multicasting are easy to see. Here's an example from last night's America's Got Talent:

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8618/07082009205747small.png

I scaled down the image size, but the pixelation is obvious, obnoxious, and irritating.

There really isn't any comparison between OTA, satellite, or cable compared to BD. That's not to say that those other sources are useless, but they can't compete quality-wise. That's also not to say that there haven't been disappointing BD releases, but they're generally not due to format limitations.

Scott

Once again, that is not true. It has 2.5 times the rate (720p). 80% of the time, BD bitrate is below 20Mbits.

Only one channel I have is 720p, all others are 1080i. Why keep bringing up 720p? Oh where did you get that 80% of the time business? Whenever I've checked the bitrate while watching a movie it was usually 27-35, and as I said before, an avc codec at that bitrate is amazing and far above 15-20 rate with mpeg2.

When I say fast motion, I don't just mean motion of actors but also backgrounds, hency why fringe and er would be higher.

Yeah I followed you on that point, and I stand by my assertion that compression artifacts happen frequently and not just in fast motion scenes.

What exactly are you missing for OTA shows. Do you really need to see 30 Rock or My name is Earl in 1080p instead of 1080i?

We have been over 1080p vs 1080i: remember I explained to you that's not an issue. I can only conclude that you are attempting to set up a strawman.

Please just stop. You're just being stubborn now.
And I'm not going to continue this anymore. You can't see reason because you're recycling points that have already been refuted and you are just wasting my time.

Everyone is going to have different displays, different sources, different eyes, different lighting conditions, different viewing distance, etc. That is what make PQ so subjective.

With that said, my thoughts are.........it is far more about bit rate than resolution. I have had HD for a long time. Way back with only a handful of channels the PQ was awesome. After some time I noticed more pixilation and macroblocking and not as sharp a picture. Complained to the cable company and got to know an engineer there. He eventually admitted they recently went from 2 channels per QAM to 3, thus dividing available bandwidth into 3 channels rather than 2. I have had DishNetwork for 3+ years now. I'd say on 90% of programming I can see evidence of bandwidth starving. I can compare OTA to Dish on locals and the additional bandwidth starving Dish is doing is obvious. Nothing I enjoy more than watching a program with no, or only very minor, PQ issues....but the only way I see that is via Blu-Ray. For me, Blu-Ray is far and away better than cable, sat and OTA.

And as others mentioned, 1080p24 (blu-ray) takes less bandwidth than 1080i60 (most OTA, cable,sat). So you take something requiring less bandwidth, give it up to twice as much, and use a more efficient codec (twice as efficient) and you get a far superior picture.

There was a thread here a year ago maybe where someone took a video clip and reduced resolution a couple ways and reduced bandwidth a couple times. Comparing all 6 iterations or so iterations it was very obvious the reduced bandwidth played a bigger role than reduced resolution.

This is watching on a fully calibrated 57" display at 10ft viewing distance.

Obviously those with larger screens and closer viewing distances will see more PQ issues than those with small screens and sit farther away. Honestly, most people don't have large enough screens and sit to far away to see the issues/differences.

And be sure you are comparing the same program on BD vs OTA. Film has a different look than live video. Some may prefer one vs the other.

And finally most movie theaters suck for PQ, I don't even bother going to a theater any more. I saw Tranformers 2 in a real IMAX and the PQ was amazing. Looking forward to the Blu-Ray...and my much cheaper popcorn. :)

Not necessarily true. OTA HD broadcast is either in 720p or 1080i depending on the channel. Those resolutions are about half of what is required for 1080p. If you tried to send 1080p over the air, then yes would get artifacts galore... not so much with OTA HD.


Actually no. 1080p has no more resolution than 1080i, both have 1920x1080 pixels to make a full frame. But how many frames they have and how they refresh is bandwidth.

1080p24 would look better than 1080i60 OTA as it actually requires less bandwidth. 1080p60 would look worse, yes, because it requires more bandwidth [60 frames/sec vs 60 fields/sec (=30 frames/sec)], not because it has higher resolution.