Why is it when I watch palladia and a couple of other channels up there on my 1080p tv, why do those HD channels look way more superior to all the other HD channels? Some of my HD channels just plain suck. It seems like espn's quality has gone down alittle to. Just curious.
Can somebody tell me...
- Thread starter xterra
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 2K
I've noticed too, on my 622, if you set it to 1080i and view a 720p channel like ESPN the picture is slightly degraded further. I supposed because the box upscales from 720p to 1080i. This is really noticable in SD videos they show on those channels, text and such looks really jagged and has lines through it. Setting it to 720p (so it's native) and viewing that SD on the HD channel again, the text and logos become softer but they are smooth again.
Not sure which ESPN you guys are watching, but the games tonight have looked great...
The main issue you are having is like 8butbytes said it is up to the network you are watching to determine the quality they want their content to be delivered in... If the network is only giving dish 720p, it will be far less crisp than say the weather channel broadcasting in 1080i...
Well no matter what if the ****NETWORK**** i.e Fox, FX, ABC, ESPN whoever is starting the video delivery process in crappy HD (720p) why would be be mad at your pay tv provider for giving you what the network gave them? they cant tell the network they HAVE to broadcast in 1080i... so if you want to be mad at someone... be mad at the network originating the low quality program, not the messenger...
Oh, and by the way 10 bucks for HD aint bad in my book.......
Oh, and by the way 10 bucks for HD aint bad in my book.......
Last edited:
720p is crappy HD?
I joke, but honestly, if someone tells me that properly done 720p looks crappy, that makes me think something is wrong with the setup. (not saying those channels are properly done, I just think it is something other than the rez)
There are many reasons that some channels look better than others. Compression from the provider, quality of equipment that the content was shot on, encoders, ect. Far down the list is the actual resolution once you get into HD territory.
I joke, but honestly, if someone tells me that properly done 720p looks crappy, that makes me think something is wrong with the setup. (not saying those channels are properly done, I just think it is something other than the rez)
There are many reasons that some channels look better than others. Compression from the provider, quality of equipment that the content was shot on, encoders, ect. Far down the list is the actual resolution once you get into HD territory.
720p is crappy HD?
I joke, but honestly, if someone tells me that properly done 720p looks crappy, that makes me think something is wrong with the setup.
There's a reason there are different HD formats. ESPN chose 720p because it's better for fast motion. 720p looks better than 1080i for some applications, 1080i looks better than 720p for others.
More importantly, 720p done RIGHT always looks better than 1080i done WRONG.
The majority of the people on this board can't wrap their minds around anything other than raw resolution. They'd be shocked how much of the programming they think looks fantastic was shot on DVCPro HD...at only 960x720 resolution. Meanwhile, I have a 1440 x 1080i camera that BARELY looks better than my old VX2000 SD camera.
Catch the Led Zeppelin concert on palladia? It's out of the 70's and looks amazing! Not to mention the sound is clearly been reworked too! Palladia is awesome.
This is true and I didn't really mean 720p was crappy.. I was simply saying that it is up to the network to PROVIDE quality before dish can deliver quality...
and yes ESPN was smart enough to know that a lower resolution progressivly scanned would be better for fast motion than a higher interlaced resolution... I understand the differences and was only trying to convey the above message.
This has much more to do with the attitude of the programmer and how well the content was shot and mastered in the first place. Concert videos are often some of the best looking HD because they are the best shot HD, with an attitude of producing the best looking image and best sound with substantial rehearsal or multiple shoots over days for what will be the performance of record for that artist for that period of his career. The quality of the HD cameras and lens and attention to lighting and aesthetics for HD, etc. The less things are done right at production, the more it has to be cleaned-up in post-production, and it is almost always a process that compromises the video quality of the content. And let me tell you, lighting is EVERYTHING, and it takes time, care, and skill to light well and the result is sumptuous HD. There is a lot of poorly lit HD content out there.
In general, movies will almost always be among the best looking in HD because of the greater care for higher quality in cinema compared to TV that has very short shoot schedules and great pressure to churn out those episodes. Yes, there is some great looking television in HD, but quite a lot of sloppy HD, as well.
The difference can even be seen in prime time shows with some crime shows opting for a bland, dark look of very little color to convey a desired mood (could even be the result of poor lighting) or an intentional reduction of detail for mood (to look more like cinema--so they think) or to please and age-conscious actor, that results in a comparatively inferior PQ, while another TV show is produced with vibrant colors and high detail and lit by a master and mastered in the best post-production house with the best equipment. Yes, there are professionals out there in big-time TV who don't perform their tasks properly, etc.
Ironically, a really high-detail mastering and transfer (such as in some Blu-Ray), can result in seeing a lot of grain of the film. Some producers/directors believe that while the grain is undesirable, the detail they get in exchange for it is worth it, while the next producer/director thinks the grain is horrid noise and will choose to soften detail to obtain a "clean" look. The digital transfer of Cosmos (DVD version) is a great example film grain hell for the detail.
All of the above has been true for decades in Standard Definition. The difference is that some of the best HDTV's available today are capable of reproducing with such fidelity that these differences are displayed in far greater detail than our older SDTV's. I've been viewing HD through a Sharp for about 2 years now, and I can see some of these difference somewhat slightly, but since I've been viewing more on my Sony Z series, the differences are night and day with proplerly produced and mastered video looking absolutely, sumptuously PERFECT--as being there (the Grammys telecast was life-like, utter HD perfection that telecast was) and the sloppy stuff looking pretty bad. UFO Hunters is mastered with everybody looking a bit yellow and a yellow overall (on both HDTV's) while the local News is rich and accurate via LIL satellite , along with most of the movies on the premiums, but even the premiums air a crappy HD master of a film and it looks BAD for what could mistaken for low satellite bandwidth. But in fact, it is low bandwidth at the mastering level. Not all mastering houses are the same nor all production crews equally skilled nor all producers share the same notions of aesthetics nor what compromise of PQ they will chose to create their mood.
I used to think it may have been Dish's fault for some unflattering things I see in my Sharp, but I can tell you, since the Sony Z, Dish really is sending out EXCELLENT HD to us. Each channel really is being given justice by Dish, but I have noticed that it varies by what show or movie is playing on that channel. I think we forget about the variable of how good or how poor our displays are. I truly don't see any of the complaints on this board about supposed poor HD quality on my sets. And yes, I do have OTA connected directly to the TV for comparison. My biggest complaint is Dish's SD quality, and it is very poor, although the Sony Z does a good job cleaning it up while the Sharp is horrendous with SD.
I think all this may be more to our displays and how we have them adjusted and the poor quality we see more attributed to production and mastering. My aunt's Sony S (entry level model) series displays underwhelming HD on all channels. I've seen poor HD on great PQ HD channels followed by great HD on that same channel. I'm certainly not suggesting that Dish HD is better than nor as good as Blu-Ray, just that I have no complaints with the HD quality Dish is sending me, compression and all. There really is a big difference in HDTV brands, low and high end models and adjustments, and HD will make all those compromises far more apparent to us all.
In general, movies will almost always be among the best looking in HD because of the greater care for higher quality in cinema compared to TV that has very short shoot schedules and great pressure to churn out those episodes. Yes, there is some great looking television in HD, but quite a lot of sloppy HD, as well.
The difference can even be seen in prime time shows with some crime shows opting for a bland, dark look of very little color to convey a desired mood (could even be the result of poor lighting) or an intentional reduction of detail for mood (to look more like cinema--so they think) or to please and age-conscious actor, that results in a comparatively inferior PQ, while another TV show is produced with vibrant colors and high detail and lit by a master and mastered in the best post-production house with the best equipment. Yes, there are professionals out there in big-time TV who don't perform their tasks properly, etc.
Ironically, a really high-detail mastering and transfer (such as in some Blu-Ray), can result in seeing a lot of grain of the film. Some producers/directors believe that while the grain is undesirable, the detail they get in exchange for it is worth it, while the next producer/director thinks the grain is horrid noise and will choose to soften detail to obtain a "clean" look. The digital transfer of Cosmos (DVD version) is a great example film grain hell for the detail.
All of the above has been true for decades in Standard Definition. The difference is that some of the best HDTV's available today are capable of reproducing with such fidelity that these differences are displayed in far greater detail than our older SDTV's. I've been viewing HD through a Sharp for about 2 years now, and I can see some of these difference somewhat slightly, but since I've been viewing more on my Sony Z series, the differences are night and day with proplerly produced and mastered video looking absolutely, sumptuously PERFECT--as being there (the Grammys telecast was life-like, utter HD perfection that telecast was) and the sloppy stuff looking pretty bad. UFO Hunters is mastered with everybody looking a bit yellow and a yellow overall (on both HDTV's) while the local News is rich and accurate via LIL satellite , along with most of the movies on the premiums, but even the premiums air a crappy HD master of a film and it looks BAD for what could mistaken for low satellite bandwidth. But in fact, it is low bandwidth at the mastering level. Not all mastering houses are the same nor all production crews equally skilled nor all producers share the same notions of aesthetics nor what compromise of PQ they will chose to create their mood.
I used to think it may have been Dish's fault for some unflattering things I see in my Sharp, but I can tell you, since the Sony Z, Dish really is sending out EXCELLENT HD to us. Each channel really is being given justice by Dish, but I have noticed that it varies by what show or movie is playing on that channel. I think we forget about the variable of how good or how poor our displays are. I truly don't see any of the complaints on this board about supposed poor HD quality on my sets. And yes, I do have OTA connected directly to the TV for comparison. My biggest complaint is Dish's SD quality, and it is very poor, although the Sony Z does a good job cleaning it up while the Sharp is horrendous with SD.
I think all this may be more to our displays and how we have them adjusted and the poor quality we see more attributed to production and mastering. My aunt's Sony S (entry level model) series displays underwhelming HD on all channels. I've seen poor HD on great PQ HD channels followed by great HD on that same channel. I'm certainly not suggesting that Dish HD is better than nor as good as Blu-Ray, just that I have no complaints with the HD quality Dish is sending me, compression and all. There really is a big difference in HDTV brands, low and high end models and adjustments, and HD will make all those compromises far more apparent to us all.
Last edited:
