[jcblack]

I do not have DirectTV. Everytime I watch direct tv the image quality bothers me. Sure, its usually bright and pretty clear, but the compression artifacts kill me. OK, its not THAT bad, but I'd assume it would be better since its touted as so.


So to the point...

I have seen very little HD from DirectTV, hence my asking. . . How does HD from DirectTV compare to HD OTA? Can you see a difference? If so, will the quality of satellite HD ever get worse or improve? Local digital cable is horrible as well. So how about HD cable?


And when is digital really going to be better?

 

[thorr]

Personally, I feel the regular channels used to look great, but got much worse over time. The HD channels currently look fantastic.

 

[ShawnWesterhoff]

Regular channels are embarrassing...HDNET is the best HD I have ever seen...HBO is occasionally great but not the level of HDNET most days/programs. The movies shot by HBO always look great in HD but the rest of the programming is hit or miss. I feel that HDNET is significantly better than most OTA high definition.

 

[Ken H]

Generally speaking, HDTV quality is pretty consistent between sources: cable, OTA & DBS. The major exception is if OTA stations use subchannels, which reduces the bandwidth available for HDTV.


The new HDTV DTheater tapes from JVC have greater bandwidth capability and if properly executed will look better than the above sources.


There is a much greater difference in the appearance of the two methods of acquiring HDTV: live to video or film transfer.

 

[tmdorsey]

Yeah I think HDNet stuff looks so good because most of it is video. Movies on and shows HBO, Showtime, and most network programming is shot on film. Like I watched "Philly" last night on ABC and it looked great but it had that "film" look to it, where as Monday I watched "The Young and the Restless" on CBS and it looked as good as most HDNet programming and I think that soap operas are video as opposed to film.

 

[NYJerr]

Maybe its the line doubler of my Zenith DTV-1080 with Component connection to my Hitachi 43" widescreen but some of the stuff on National Geo and Discovery look as good as DVD's or FOX's 480p. I have D*, OTA local and Basic Cable hooked up to the DTV-1080. Most everything on D* is acceptable to excellent. The OTA digital is sharp and clear. Analog Cable is grainy but I only use it for backup. HBO/HD, HDNet on D* and HD from CBS and NBC OTA look absolutely fantastic.

 

[WHEELO1]

I have c-band, MPEG2/DVB and DirecTV and I rank the DirecTV sd as the poorest. Am viewing on a Pioneer Elite 520 with a damn nice line doubler and can only say that if I had to watch sd on Direct, I would take up reading.


The analog on c-band is stunning when the source is uplinked from other than an OTA source, as are most network feeds. ABC analog from the ABC uplink and the HBO/SHO/Starz analogs are as good as NTSC gets, short of a 4:2:2 studio profile feed.


MPEG2/DVB even puts Direct's digital stuff to shame. The secret's in the compression, and this (c-band and MPEG) is where Direct is getting most of its original material, which it then slices, dices and grinds until the detail is gone, gone, gone.


BTW..the original source PBS HD feeds are the most stunning of the HD you'll find anywhere. Beats the OTA retransmission but is only available using MPEG2/DVB Unity Motion/Integra receiver and Big Useful Dish.


Just my $0.02, your mileage may vary greatly.