How is the HD Directv image quality in US?

[Tmbr]

Hi guys,

I'm from Brazil and currently subscribe the local Directv (which here is named "SKY"). A couple months ago they launched their HD service and i noticed that the image quality is very poor for hd standards.

Of course it is much better than regular SD, yet, its much worse than a blu-ray. The image suffers from over compression (macro blocks) and lacks definition (oversharpen, washed out colors, etc).

I whould like to know how is the image quality in the original HD directv. Does it also suffer from the problems i mentioned? How is the image quality compared to a blu-ray? Can you see a lot of macroblocks?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers :

 

[jdspencer]

What satellites are Sky using?
What receiver(s)?
HD for me looks very good.
I don't have Blu-ray so can't compare.
I'll let others respond further.

 

[Jimbo]

Hi guys,

I'm from Brazil and currently subscribe the local Directv (which here is named "SKY"). A couple months ago they launched their HD service and i noticed that the image quality is very poor for hd standards.

Of course it is much better than regular SD, yet, its much worse than a blu-ray. The image suffers from over compression (macro blocks) and lacks definition (oversharpen, washed out colors, etc).

I whould like to know how is the image quality in the original HD directv. Does it also suffer from the problems i mentioned? How is the image quality compared to a blu-ray? Can you see a lot of macroblocks?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers :

What satellites are Sky using?
What receiver(s)?
HD for me looks very good.
I don't have Blu-ray so can't compare.
I'll let others respond further.

My HD looks pretty da*n good when it's a good quality signal being sent.
All HD signals are not the same, alot has to do with the original feed that D* is getting.

With a normal signal, I don't see macroblocking, very rarely do I ever have this problem ....
As for Blue Ray, BR is a higher quality than what most HD is at the moment.

There is NO broadcast channels using 1080p, which is what BR is ....

That said, I'm watching the Tigers on their local FSN Detroit and the picture looks awesome as does the football games I've seen today.

LIVE events will always have the potential to look better than anything that has been recorded ....

Jimbo

 

[vurbano]

Hi guys,

I'm from Brazil and currently subscribe the local Directv (which here is named "SKY"). A couple months ago they launched their HD service and i noticed that the image quality is very poor for hd standards.

Of course it is much better than regular SD, yet, its much worse than a blu-ray. The image suffers from over compression (macro blocks) and lacks definition (oversharpen, washed out colors, etc).

I whould like to know how is the image quality in the original HD directv. Does it also suffer from the problems i mentioned? How is the image quality compared to a blu-ray? Can you see a lot of macroblocks?

Thanks for any help.

Cheers :

Its 1/2 the quality of BluRay of course, but nothing is going to match that. Macroblocking depends on the channel.. D* PQ has decreased slighty since the launch of its mpeg4 equipment and new sats.

 

[Jimbo]

Its 1/2 the quality of BluRay of course, but nothing is going to match that. Macroblocking depends on the channel.. D* PQ has decreased slighty since the launch of its mpeg4 sats.

Too be fair , the picture quality picked up by leaps and bounds when they went from MPEG2 to MPEG4 technology.
I think most people have adjusted to the difference now.
Picture quality can be slightlty better on one channel and slightly worse on another.
But still when they went to MPEG 4 everything picked up to a certain degree.

 

[NotMe546]

Sports look great, everything else needs help.

 

[Jimbo]

Sports look great, everything else needs help.

I would say MOST EVERYTHING on CBS in Prime Time looks Fabulous .... So it's NOT just sports .... like I said previously, anything "LIVE" has the potential to be very impressive.

 

[Tmbr]

The receiver sky uses is the localized HR22 .

Everything is identical, except they replaced all blue hues with sky's red color (menus included).

 

[Jimbo]

The receiver sky uses is the localized HR22 .

Everything is identical, except they replaced all blue hues with sky's red color (menus included).

So , your saying that the Sky service uses D*'s equipment ?
Are they owned by D* ?

 

[vurbano]

Too be fair , the picture quality picked up by leaps and bounds when they went from MPEG2 to MPEG4 technology.
I think most people have adjusted to the difference now.
Picture quality can be slightlty better on one channel and slightly worse on another.
But still when they went to MPEG 4 everything picked up to a certain degree.

Yo be fair, It was absolute unwatchable crap back then before mpeg4. I was looking at some birates on my PS3 streaming some old recordings from back then, I have about 4 TB's worth and it looks worse than superbit DVD. Worse than DVD actually if you take the screendoor effect and lack of color into account. Certainly their PQ is improved. I'm just saying that if you hand a dying man in the desert a glass of water from a well somewhere he is going to think its the best water he's ever had.

 

[raoul5788]

Yo be fair, It was absolute unwatchable crap back then before mpeg4. I was looking at some birates on my PS3 streaming some old recordings from back then, I have about 4 TB's worth and it looks worse than superbit DVD. Worse than DVD actually if you take the screendoor effect and lack of color into account. Certainly their PQ is improved. I'm just saying that if you hand a dying man in the desert a glass of water from a well somewhere he is going to think its the best water he's ever had.

Unwatchable compared to what? You are a real piece of work. Nothing is ever good enough for you. You remind me of the old man who won't let kids on his lawn even though a dog wouldn't dump on it.

 

[Jimbo]

Yo be fair, It was absolute unwatchable crap back then before mpeg4. I was looking at some birates on my PS3 streaming some old recordings from back then, I have about 4 TB's worth and it looks worse than superbit DVD. Worse than DVD actually if you take the screendoor effect and lack of color into account. Certainly their PQ is improved. I'm just saying that if you hand a dying man in the desert a glass of water from a well somewhere he is going to think its the best water he's ever had.

Too be fair , the picture quality picked up by leaps and bounds when they went from MPEG2 to MPEG4 technology.
I think most people have adjusted to the difference now.
Picture quality can be slightlty better on one channel and slightly worse on another.
But still when they went to MPEG 4 everything picked up to a certain degree.

Isn't this what I said in my post ?

Jimbo

 

[raoul5788]

Isn't this what I said in my post ?

Jimbo

No. You said it in an upbeat, reasonable way. Vurbano said it in a negative way, the way he always does.

 

[slimoli]

I will try to answer the original question from our Brazilian fellow member:

The quality of the HD is all about how compressed is the signal and what codec is used. Directv was using MPEG2 few years ago and over compressing the signal. Quality was not even close to Bluray. We now use MPEG4, much more efficient, and the quality is pretty good. Obviously we will always complain and demand an even better picture (we are very picky, aren't we ?).

Not knowing how many channels Directv is using per transponder in Brazil and not knowing the codec, is difficult to say if your picture is as good as it can be or it's similar of our old MPEG2 in a overbooked transponder. My hunch is that Sky is starving for satellite space ,as most satellite services are in the world , and if they use MPEG2 the picture is probably not so good.

There is one more thing to consider: HD service does not warrant HD picture. You need a HD channel and a HD program. Even in US we still have a lot of SD material being broadcasted on HD channels. I bet only very few programs are recorded and broadcasted in HD in Brazil but I'm sure you already know that.

 

[cfb]

Hopefully I wont be branded either excessively enthusiastic or negative

Directv's standard def PQ isnt as good as it used to be. Comparing something like a premium SD movie channel to DVD, back 5-8 years it was hard to tell the difference. Now the dvd looks a lot better.

The HD PQ is definitely compressed and sent at a reduced bitrate to terrestrial broadcast. If you've got an HR20 and compare a live broadcast sent from a local station to directv's mpeg4 broadcast, the PQ differential is significant.

All of which makes perfect sense. Directv has to send 10lbs of feed via a 5lb bag. Something has to give.

Some channels are also worse than others. The NFLST SD feeds last year were horrific. Worst stuff I've seen on television in a long time. Washed out, grainy, rainbows on all the white lines on the field during kickoffs, blurring on fast motion plays. Terrible.

Although I havent done PPV movies or premium channels, I also understand from others that the PQ changes based on what day of the week it is. I've heard that they turn up the PQ on PPV's and premiums on the nights when they're most commonly watch. Significant sporting events also get more bits.

Another thing is that for we long time directv viewers, we're aging and so are our eyes. So what looks pretty much the same to you now that you're 45 vs 15 years ago when you were 30 may be a function of declining eyesight thats matched the declining PQ

 

[Jimbo]

Hopefully I wont be branded either excessively enthusiastic or negative

Directv's standard def PQ isnt as good as it used to be. Comparing something like a premium SD movie channel to DVD, back 5-8 years it was hard to tell the difference. Now the dvd looks a lot better.

The HD PQ is definitely compressed and sent at a reduced bitrate to terrestrial broadcast. If you've got an HR20 and compare a live broadcast sent from a local station to directv's mpeg4 broadcast, the PQ differential is significant.

All of which makes perfect sense. Directv has to send 10lbs of feed via a 5lb bag. Something has to give.

Some channels are also worse than others. The NFLST SD feeds last year were horrific. Worst stuff I've seen on television in a long time. Washed out, grainy, rainbows on all the white lines on the field during kickoffs, blurring on fast motion plays. Terrible.

Although I havent done PPV movies or premium channels, I also understand from others that the PQ changes based on what day of the week it is. I've heard that they turn up the PQ on PPV's and premiums on the nights when they're most commonly watch. Significant sporting events also get more bits.

Another thing is that for we long time directv viewers, we're aging and so are our eyes. So what looks pretty much the same to you now that you're 45 vs 15 years ago when you were 30 may be a function of declining eyesight thats matched the declining PQ

That's why you buy a LARGER better quality TV !

Jimbo

 

[cfb]

Yeah I did. I've got a 55", a 65" and a 100" projection setup.

Do I need to go bigger than that?!?

When I first got directv I had a huge 25" set in the bedroom and a whopping 30" set in the living room...

 

[raoul5788]

Hopefully I wont be branded either excessively enthusiastic or negative


The HD PQ is definitely compressed and sent at a reduced bitrate to terrestrial broadcast. If you've got an HR20 and compare a live broadcast sent from a local station to directv's mpeg4 broadcast, the PQ differential is significant.

Well, you are being excessively negative. The picture quality of local channels from Directv really is very good. Is it as good as ota, no. I suspect most would say it is at least nearly the same as ota. To say the differential is significant is simply wrong. BTW, ota is compressed, too.

 

[vurbano]

The receiver sky uses is the localized HR22 .

Everything is identical, except they replaced all blue hues with sky's red color (menus included).

Its got pretty lights.

 

[lern4483]

Hopefully I wont be branded either excessively enthusiastic or negative

Directv's standard def PQ isnt as good as it used to be. Comparing something like a premium SD movie channel to DVD, back 5-8 years it was hard to tell the difference. Now the dvd looks a lot better.

The HD PQ is definitely compressed and sent at a reduced bitrate to terrestrial broadcast. If you've got an HR20 and compare a live broadcast sent from a local station to directv's mpeg4 broadcast, the PQ differential is significant.

All of which makes perfect sense. Directv has to send 10lbs of feed via a 5lb bag. Something has to give.

Some channels are also worse than others. The NFLST SD feeds last year were horrific. Worst stuff I've seen on television in a long time. Washed out, grainy, rainbows on all the white lines on the field during kickoffs, blurring on fast motion plays. Terrible.

Although I havent done PPV movies or premium channels, I also understand from others that the PQ changes based on what day of the week it is. I've heard that they turn up the PQ on PPV's and premiums on the nights when they're most commonly watch. Significant sporting events also get more bits.

Another thing is that for we long time directv viewers, we're aging and so are our eyes. So what looks pretty much the same to you now that you're 45 vs 15 years ago when you were 30 may be a function of declining eyesight thats matched the declining PQ

Sad but true...Just turned 45 last week. I bought a new 54'' panasonic plasma for bedroom.
Looks great but It seems( stunned by this) I need to wear glasses while watching it. Otherwise its not to sharp.
Ive only needed to wear glases while reading never to watch tv.

Oh well...The tennis on direc has looked real good!