Directv=HD Lite?

[swampman]

Well I can't say I'm really happy with my HD package. Not only is it expensive for the amount of channels included, but the picture quality is "soft" at best. I think my OTA HD is better! And I keep hearing people say its because Directv is not "real" HD...just HD lite. Not the case with Dishnetwork. Is this true and if so then why?

 

[RealityCheck]

Well I can't say I'm really happy with my HD package. Not only is it expensive for the amount of channels included, but the picture quality is "soft" at best. I think my OTA HD is better! And I keep hearing people say its because Directv is not "real" HD...just HD lite. Not the case with Dishnetwork. Is this true and if so then why?

This is totally not true (in regards to DISH at least) - MOST of their channels are also HD-LITE, they only have a handful or so that are full-rezz.

For both it is a bandwidth issue.

 

[Ramy]

When the new satellite goes up for Directv that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

 

[swampman]

Thats good news. Additional channels would be nice too.

 

[Questioner]

When the new satellite goes up for Directv that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

That's speculation. Directv has promised more channels, not improved quality. They have not even really acknowledged hd lite.

 

[Questioner]

Well I can't say I'm really happy with my HD package. Not only is it expensive for the amount of channels included, but the picture quality is "soft" at best. I think my OTA HD is better! And I keep hearing people say its because Directv is not "real" HD...just HD lite. Not the case with Dishnetwork. Is this true and if so then why?

With a strong signal, OTA is generally better quality than any hd provider. Fios comes real close though.

 

[Jimbo]

That's speculation. Directv has promised more channels, not improved quality. They have not even really acknowledged hd lite.

DISH has not acknowledged HDLite either.

Technically, anything 720 and up is considered HD according to the FCC, unfortunatly, there are no standard other than what I mentioned.

Jimbo

 

[Smith P.]

Eeeh man - don't make it fuzzy; there is simple logic: HDTV sets by ATSC standard have only two resolutions: 1920x1080 and 1280x720. i.e. have square pixels and 16:9 ratio. So, sat/cable providers should follow the standard; what they did just fullfit OUTPUT signal, but downrezzing and overcompressing in their 'pipes' what bring PQ DOWN !

 

[riffjim4069]

DirecTV is indeed HD-Lite, Dish Network currently offers more HD of various HD-Lite flavors, and OTA is clearly superior.

 

[Ramy]

That's speculation. Directv has promised more channels, not improved quality. They have not even really acknowledged hd lite.

No it isn't, just ask the people that have Mpeg-4 locals how good they look compared to OTA, they can't tell the difference.

 

[richiephx]

When the new satellite goes up for Directv that shouldn't be a problem anymore.

No one but D* knows this so we need to wait and see what happens.

 

[Smith P.]

No one but D* knows this so we need to wait and see what happens.

Knock on the wood .

 

[Spike]

No it isn't, just ask the people that have Mpeg-4 locals how good they look compared to OTA, they can't tell the difference.

Really? If this is the case, that is a definite improvement. Are you a benefactor of those Mpeg-4 locals?

:

 

[Jimbo]

Really? If this is the case, that is a definite improvement. Are you a benefactor of those Mpeg-4 locals?

:

This has been mentioned in alot of threads on alot of different sites.

Jimbo

 

[Brewer4]

I have 4 methods of getting HD locals via OTA. H20, HR10-250, HR20 and FusionHD card on Vista Media Center. I then also get network locals via the H20 and HR20. I cant really see a difference. There have been some issues with 8 mm issues on 1080i ones in the beginning but that issue is fixed and ancient history.

So on an eyeball basis, I cant really say the OTA is substantially better then the MPEG4 versions over sat via 4 different types of HDTVs (2 LCD's, CRT, Projection). I tend to use the OTA channels since I cant imagine they wouldnt be the best but its clear to me D* chose the right technology, has worked the bugs out, and should have a good future using MPEG4 going forward.

 

[Ramy]

Really? If this is the case, that is a definite improvement. Are you a benefactor of those Mpeg-4 locals?

:

No, I am going off what people say here since mine aren't available yet. Scott said he couldn't even tell the difference between them in his thread about Directv.

 

[Ricknau]

Seems there might be a chance that the MPEG 4 could be better that OTA... what with sub-channels dragging some OTA broadcasts down.

 

[Jimbo]

Seems there might be a chance that the MPEG 4 could be better that OTA... what with sub-channels dragging some OTA broadcasts down.

Good point :up

Jimbo

 

[robbiee19]

I have two stations that have sub-channels and two that don't. I can't tell a difference at all on all the channels on OTA vs HD MPEG 4.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

DirecTV's MPEG2 HD looks worse then Dish Networks, however DirecTV's MPEG4 HD looks BETTER then Dish Networks.

Lets hope this is a sign of whats to come iin the future.