HD lite revisited.... & DTV vs Dish HD

[brad1138]

Ya I know, but I wanted to drag up this old topic.

I am a big Dish fan, have had it since 2000. We sell & install both Dish and DirecTV. I accept that we have to deal with a sub HD picture quality with all providers, but I am bother by the fact that DTV is very noticeably sharper and less compressed than Dish. We have 2 42" identical sets in our showroom, 1 with a 722 and the other an HR24. It is a very clear difference. My boss recently switched from Dish to Direct at home, mainly to get more familiar with the new DTV equipment. After switching out at home, he was VERY surprised by the improved picture quality (he has a 55" LCD and 100" projection).

We both still like Dish better for most other features (we sell Dish about 10 to 1 over Directv), but It would be very nice if Dish could match DTVs picture quality.

Do we know if after support for qpsk receivers is dropped in about 18 months or so (effectively doubling the bandwidth I believe) will they be using less compression? I would think Dish with 3 high powered satellites instead of 1 high and 2 medium that Directv uses, they would have more bandwidth ability.

Anyway, every so often it just bugs me that if I want closer to true HD picture quality I would need to switch to Directv, something I don't want to do. Just hoping someone is going to tell me it will get better I guess.

Brad

 

[Tampa8]

Thanks for your impression.

 

[empiretc]

Anyway, every so often it just bugs me that if I want closer to true HD picture quality I would need to switch to Directv, something I don't want to do. Just hoping someone is going to tell me it will get better I guess.

After purchasing 55" LED tv, the HD quality between the 722 and Netflix is extremely noticeable. They looked about the same on the 46" LCD. It's even funny comparing the locals on dish and the bunny ears. The bunny ears look absolutely amazing...

Hopefully something will happen. A buddy recently switched to DTV for this exact reason.

 

[3HaloODST]

Most would say that D* has a marginally better picture than E*, and having seen both myself it's far from a night and day difference. I would like it though if E* could leave the resolution at 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080 for the 1080i channels (and with the appropriate bandwidth increase, not just higher resolution with more compression.)

The conversion to 8PSK from what I gather will give about 33% more bandwidth to the 110/119 satellites. If they ever get rid of MPEG2 receivers (very long time from now) then that would give another 97% more bandwidth to 110/119.

After purchasing 55" LED tv, the HD quality between the 722 and Netflix is extremely noticeable. They looked about the same on the 46" LCD. It's even funny comparing the locals on dish and the bunny ears. The bunny ears look absolutely amazing...

That sounds to me like a difference in input calibration. Different inputs have different picture settings. Netflix isn't really much of anything to compare as far as HD quality is concerned. Netflix only does 1080p24 @ 8Mbps, nothing stellar about those figures.

 

[whatchel1]

After purchasing 55" LED tv, the HD quality between the 722 and Netflix is extremely noticeable. They looked about the same on the 46" LCD. It's even funny comparing the locals on dish and the bunny ears. The bunny ears look absolutely amazing...

Hopefully something will happen. A buddy recently switched to DTV for this exact reason.

Can't compare the 2. They are not the same delivery system. Dish isn't either BluRay or streaming in this case and you also can't compare OTA w/ the sat delivered locals either. It is just not possible for E* to give as much bandwidth to their channels as either net download or OTA transmission.

 

[brad1138]

The bunny ears look absolutely amazing...

Hopefully something will happen. A buddy recently switched to DTV for this exact reason.

Unfortunately, I live more than 30 miles from my locals broadcast towers and can't get any of them with even the biggest antenna. That is what I mean though, the picture OTA reminds me of how great I remember it looking when I first saw it, through Dish, not so much.

About 6 months ago I happened across an HD Latino channel that for whatever reason wasn't compressed looking at all. I recorded about 2 minutes of it, it is an amazing difference in PQ. I didn't think my TV could look that good.

 

[whatchel1]

Most would say that D* has a marginally better picture than E*, and having seen both myself it's far from a night and day difference. I would like it though if E* could leave the resolution at 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080 for the 1080i channels (and with the appropriate bandwidth increase, not just higher resolution with more compression.)

The conversion to 8PSK from what I gather will give about 33% more bandwidth to the 110/119 satellites. If they ever get rid of MPEG2 receivers (very long time from now) then that would give another 97% more bandwidth to 110/119.



That sounds to me like a difference in input calibration. Different inputs have different picture settings. Netflix isn't really much of anything to compare as far as HD quality is concerned. Netflix only does 1080p24 @ 8Mbps, nothing stellar about those figures.

Agree 100% they are not setting up the 2 systems to peak out them for the different carriers. So they are comparing apples and oranges in all the cases here.

 

[empiretc]

That sounds to me like a difference in input calibration. Different inputs have different picture settings. Netflix isn't really much of anything to compare as far as HD quality is concerned. Netflix only does 1080p24 @ 8Mbps, nothing stellar about those figures.

Nope, not a calibration or cable type issue. The picture quality varies from channel to channel on dish even if they are "hd". You can say nothing stellar about netflix, but the difference is there. the difference is noticeable streaming from the app built into the TV as opposed to steaming from the blu-ray player as well.

Can't compare the 2. They are not the same delivery system. Dish isn't either BluRay or streaming in this case and you also can't compare OTA w/ the sat delivered locals either. It is just not possible for E* to give as much bandwidth to their channels as either net download or OTA transmission.

Agreed, but the differences really were not that noticeable to us until the screen got larger and went from LCD to LED.

 

[3HaloODST]

I have also done A/B comparisons of OTA and E*. Very little difference, yes OTA is a little crisper, due to having 480 more pixels in horizontal resolution. It's still pretty subtle, as the human eyes don't care as much about horizontal resolution as they do vertical. The only way you can really tell is by looking up close and scrutinizing the clarity.

Agreed, but the differences really were not that noticeable to us until the screen got larger and went from LCD to LED.

As I said, calibration. You can't just leave the TV at default settings and expect it to look 100%. LED/LCD doesn't matter, as the vast majority of "LED" TVs are simply LCD TVs with LED backlighting as opposed to CCFL.

 

[inazsully]

I easily receive all of my locals, including CW and PBS, OTA. I am always switching between OTA and Dish , especially when watching football games. I can see no difference in PQ at all. I also record dozens of shows off sat. and OTA and still see no differences. I've been making these comparisons for 3 years. I don't see how Directv can be better than OTA but Dish is just as good as OTA. Phoenix, AZ.

 

[brad1138]

Agree 100% they are not setting up the 2 systems to peak out them for the different carriers. So they are comparing apples and oranges in all the cases here.

I assume you mean besides DTV vs Dish. You can't say that is apples to oranges.

 

[brad1138]

I easily receive all of my locals, including CW and PBS, OTA. I am always switching between OTA and Dish , especially when watching football games. I can see no difference in PQ at all. I also record dozens of shows off sat. and OTA and still see no differences. I've been making these comparisons for 3 years. I don't see how Directv can be better than OTA but Dish is just as good as OTA. Phoenix, AZ.

Neither system can be better than OTA. Your system might not be set up well enough to see the difference, but no one argues that OTA isn't better. The OTA signal is what everyone starts out with. If you get it straight from antenna, you go through no additional compression, but all providers use compression, and the original post is about Dish compressing more the Direct.

 

[empiretc]

As I said, calibration. You can't just leave the TV at default settings and expect it to look 100%. LED/LCD doesn't matter, as the vast majority of "LED" TVs are simply LCD TVs with LED backlighting as opposed to CCFL.

Who said it was @ default? It is NOT calibration......

.... besides DTV vs Dish. You can't say that is apples to oranges.

The slight difference in pq we have seen was not enough to convince us to change. The equipment with dish is just nicer. We aren't going anywhere, just hope the pq improves of course. Be sure and let us know how you get a long if you do, though.

 

[Yespage]

About 6 months ago I happened across an HD Latino channel that for whatever reason wasn't compressed looking at all. I recorded about 2 minutes of it, it is an amazing difference in PQ. I didn't think my TV could look that good.

On Dish, Univision HD feeds for soccer were remarkably better than on FSC HD.

I easily receive all of my locals, including CW and PBS, OTA. I am always switching between OTA and Dish , especially when watching football games. I can see no difference in PQ at all. I also record dozens of shows off sat. and OTA and still see no differences. I've been making these comparisons for 3 years. I don't see how Directv can be better than OTA but Dish is just as good as OTA. Phoenix, AZ.

I've had the same experience, but my television is a 37" LCD. People with larger screens may notice bigger differences.

 

[Tampa8]

I have also done A/B comparisons of OTA and E*. Very little difference, yes OTA is a little crisper, due to having 480 more pixels in horizontal resolution. It's still pretty subtle, as the human eyes don't care as much about horizontal resolution as they do vertical. The only way you can really tell is by looking up close and scrutinizing the clarity.

100,000% correct. Literally exactly what I have found. Close up, I can detect a very subtle difference, usually the edges of the face, especially the chin. It is ever so slightly better defined OTA. But at viewing distance, no difference I can see.

The program itself, (not the network) really makes a difference also. "NCIS" for some reason is always very soft (anywhere - any TV or provider), but "Hawaii Five O" is one of the best HD PQ on TV, both the same network. My point being you can't watch one program and a different one then compare providers or TV's either.

 

[3HaloODST]

Who said it was @ default? It is NOT calibration...

I will give you this. Since netflix is only 24FPS (compared to 30FPS on DISH,) it does have a little more leeway as far as the bandwidth per frame, however being at 1080p instead of 1080i it still requires more bandwidth. DISH with 1440x1080i @ 30fps can require a little less bandwidth. Point is, overall, they should both have very similar PQ, with only subtle subjective differences between the two. If they look drastically different from each other on your TV set, then it IS a calibration OR TV issue. Some TVs don't do well with deinterlacing, thus might look better with 1080p than with 1080i, others don't do well with up/downscaling, thus 720p might not look as good as it could on some TVs, with other TVs looking better at 720p than 1080i. Hell some TVs do better with HDMI than they do with component, whereas others do better with component than they do HDMI.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, DISH and Netflix bandwidth is very comparable, and it is more likely to be equipment differences that make a big difference than it is the difference in bandwidth.

 

[whatchel1]

I assume you mean besides DTV vs Dish. You can't say that is apples to oranges.

Yes I can they use entirely different systems and it is necessary to peak the input to match the service.

 

[empiretc]

Basically what I'm trying to say is, DISH and Netflix bandwidth is very comparable, and it is more likely to be equipment differences that make a big difference than it is the difference in bandwidth.

Yep, but, it's in the channels too. i.e Comedy Central look great compared to our local ABC and that is not Dish's fault.

 

[CK SatGuy]

I think the biggest issue when it comes to HD PQ on Dish is bandwidth limitations considering that Dish crams 8-10 HD channels per CONUS transponder. Yes, Directv has to deal with bandwidth limits as well, but considering that Direct only crams 5 HD channels per transponder, it's a big reason why Directv can look noticeably sharper than Dish.

 

[Jhon69]

I think the biggest issue when it comes to HD PQ on Dish is bandwidth limitations considering that Dish crams 8-10 HD channels per CONUS transponder. Yes, Directv has to deal with bandwidth limits as well, but considering that Direct only crams 5 HD channels per transponder, it's a big reason why Directv can look noticeably sharper than Dish.

It must be blinding as my PQ with DISH's HD channels are excellent with my 55"Vizio LED/LCD 240Hz HDTV and there are so many HD channels to choose from with my AT250.

But I researched the best HDTV settings over the internet they all recommended to turn the backlight way down from the original settings.I also turned down my contrast settings also,and increased my color and sharpness setting.The results are a extremely clear picture so much so that when I'm watching Visions on HDNet if I concentrate on the picture while they are showing the down view from the helicopter I get dizzy.!sadroll