or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › D*HD-Lite vs E* HD screenshot thread *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES TO LOAD*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

D*HD-Lite vs E* HD screenshot thread *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES TO LOAD* - Page 8  

post #211 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.
post #212 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.
post #213 of 346
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.
post #214 of 346
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.
post #215 of 346
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.
post #216 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.
post #217 of 346
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.
post #218 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.
post #219 of 346
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.
post #220 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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.
post #221 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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.
post #222 of 346
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.
post #223 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkjedi664 View Post

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?
post #224 of 346
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.
post #225 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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.
post #226 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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.
post #227 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmj713 View Post

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?
post #228 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkjedi664 View Post

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!").
post #229 of 346
Thread Starter 
Discovery Atlas Brazil

D* 10.1 gb AVB 12.80 Mbps

E* 9.22 AVB 13.11 Mbps
post #230 of 346
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!
post #231 of 346
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).
post #232 of 346
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...
post #233 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBFreek View Post

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.
post #234 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDTVFanAtic View Post

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.
post #235 of 346
Thread Starter 
Thanks for that link. Wished she mentioned "HD-Lite".
post #236 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

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.
post #237 of 346
Thread Starter 
Phantom Of The Opera

D* 9.40 gb AVB 8.00 Mbps

E* 11.10 AVB 10.00 Mbps
post #238 of 346
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.......
post #239 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexmi View Post

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.......

Maybe you should stop wasting your time here.
post #240 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

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...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › D*HD-Lite vs E* HD screenshot thread *WARNING - LARGE PICTURE FILES TO LOAD*