When i switched from my old 622 to my 922, i also noticed a change in picture quality for the better with the 922. Anyone know why that is? Picture quality seems crisper and color saturation seems better with the 922 than with the 622.
Dish Picture Quality Discussion
- Thread starter primetimeguy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 65
- Views 10K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
About midway through my 612's presence in this household, the PQ went up quite noticeably. I think it did this earlier (but less noticeably) on my 722 as well. I suspect, but I don't know, that Dish is mucking about with firmware or codices all the time.
frank c. said:
And my point is it may not have changed at all. Only way to know is see them sign by side. Could be, as often times is the case, the the hype, happiness and expectations for something new makes us want to believe something changed for the better. Hence our judgements are biased. Good old placebo effect.
Newer receivers get the latest chip set , which gives you better pq. I've seen an improvement every time I have upgraded to the latest hd box.
Forgot to mention that both my 622 & 922 are still being used. Both are connected to identical sony fifty five inch flat screen tv's. 922 in the living room,622 in the bedroom. Both tv's are set identical, tv with the 922 has the better picture. 622 has a softer,less intense picture than the 922. I even switched the tv's around,same results.
At the end of the day, who cares? We get what we get, from who we get it from ...on the TV's we OWN.
I can definitively say that both Dish and DirecTV have better PQ than TWC. Beyond that, I cannot say I can tell the difference.
I just came back to Dish and I can say that with the Hopper, Dish looks better than it used to look when I had a 722k a few years ago. I'm not sure if it is the receiver or they use newer encoders, but I used to be very unhappy with the quality of Dish. There are a few channels that just don't look very good, like Comedy Central or the occasional alternate sports feed, but there are channels that look excellent too. Overall, I think DirecTV was better on image clarity, but more compression artifacts were creeping up on their signals recently too. FX, on DirecTV in particular, has poorly compressed grain from hell. Dish seems to soften the image and remove some of the grain using filters. NFL Network, during games, is pretty terrible on both providers. DirecTV is ahead in quality, but there are channels where I couldn't tell them apart from Dish to save my life. You also have your channels where one provider has it in HD and the other doesn't. It is what it is.
OTA
Sounds like your issue is your local OTA providers are pushing too many sub channels into inferior encoders. Fox channels are 720p to start with and many affiliates push too many sub chs to be able to make a profit.
Sounds like your issue is your local OTA providers are pushing too many sub channels into inferior encoders. Fox channels are 720p to start with and many affiliates push too many sub chs to be able to make a profit.
I just don't tell her. She usually notices after watching the new TV about a week or two.*Edit, KAB, my wife would be pissed!! But it's easier to ask for forgiveness then permission.
But, then again, I use my own money for most tech stuff.
PQ also depends on channel. I know that Dish used to devote more bandwidth to premium channels back in SD days. They clearly looked better. I don't really notice any difference now between premium and non-premium HD channels, in any general way.
However, I do notice higher PQ on TV Japan vs all the other HD channels I watch. I'm curious what the specs are with that one? They might be using less compression and/or higher bitrate, as it is one of the few, if not the only, HD channels on 118.
For any of you that have 118 reception, I suggest you check out the free TVJ programming offered at various times throughout the day, and see if you notice the same thing I am seeing.
However, I do notice higher PQ on TV Japan vs all the other HD channels I watch. I'm curious what the specs are with that one? They might be using less compression and/or higher bitrate, as it is one of the few, if not the only, HD channels on 118.
For any of you that have 118 reception, I suggest you check out the free TVJ programming offered at various times throughout the day, and see if you notice the same thing I am seeing.
I guess my point in all of this is comments like this. You can honestly remember what the PQ looked like from that long ago and we able to compare the same content? And most comments tend to be this way, rather than the ones saying I have both providers, compared same channel at the same time.
When I switched to EA in the spring, I remember the expectation that MP4 SD could look much better than the MP2 on WA. I have not found that to be the case, in fact to me it looks MUCH worse at times.
I every so often watch TVLAND in the evening for Everybody Loves Raymond or King of Queens. The compression/macro blocking can be REALLY, REALLY bad. To me, at least, I didn't remember it looking so bad on WA.
I every so often watch TVLAND in the evening for Everybody Loves Raymond or King of Queens. The compression/macro blocking can be REALLY, REALLY bad. To me, at least, I didn't remember it looking so bad on WA.
I'm watching NFL Network right now through a 722k and it looks good. I never thought it looked bad during games.
And I on the other hand think it doesn't look so hot. Typical bitstarved MPEG4 where all fine detail is totally gone. Just look at the field, it looks like a large green blob, no resemblance to grass what so ever. Look at people's faces on close-ups, no detail at all. The H from HD is gone.
