Is there a picture quality advantage using an antenna over Directv for local channels? Don't get me wrong, the Directv pq is very good, but I am just curious as I have heard using an OTA is better than a compressed signal. Thanks, Andy
Directv picture
- Thread starter andy_horton
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 5
- Views 1K
- Status
OTA signals are compressed, too, but not as much as Directv locals. Some say there is a slightly better ota picture, some say they are the same. Bottom line, generally there isn't much difference.
I think there is a slight difference...at least on a signal that broadcasts in 1080i. I can notice it when looking at facial features. On the Directv signal, facial features like whiskers, skin texture seem to be un-noticeable, blurred, or one might say air brushed. On the direct feed from the OTA broadcast, you can notice those things easier. I figure if I can notice things like that, the OTA pq must be better overall. My HDTV is a Samsung LED.
In general, DirecTV takes the OTA signal and then converts it from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 encoding. This conversion is a "lossy" process and so the DirecTV picture can't be better than the OTA picture. If the encoders are set up correctly, you can't really see much difference. Generally though, the DirecTV picture quality will be slightly worse.
There's one exception. In a city where DirecTv gets the signal via fiber, instead of off-air, and where the station has subchannels, which steal bandwidth from the HD channel when it is transmitted OTA, the DirecTV picture quality can be better.
There's one exception. In a city where DirecTv gets the signal via fiber, instead of off-air, and where the station has subchannels, which steal bandwidth from the HD channel when it is transmitted OTA, the DirecTV picture quality can be better.
- Status
