Poor HD picture quality

[kschramm]

THE HD quality on the HR24 is not as good as the HD quality direct from the antenna signal.

I was watching the Redskins on my local Fox affiliate WTTG Channel 5 with my HR24 receiver which is hooked to the TV via HDMI. The HD quality was awful on both the satellite signal channel 5 and from my antenna signal channel 5.1. So I switched over to watch the antenna feed that is fed directly into my TV set and the picture was ten times better. Is there a way too adjust the picture on the HR24 or could the quality of the HDMI cable be the issue or is it that the HR24 just has inferior PQ

 

[TigerpounceTN]

It is possible that your HDMI input has different picture settings than the antenna setting on your tv. You could also have a bad HR24, OR, what I wouldsay is most likely, you should set your HR24 to output the signal in native mode. If you have your receiver set to output 1080i only, your 720p channels won't look as good as they should.

 

[mist668]

I have a vip 722k receiver with a vizio 48inch 1080i capable picture. I notice a poor quality like you state with movies and lots of action. Two I can think of are war movies with lots of explosions and even shows with in car video, you'll notice a blurred outline around the window.

The picture quality will more than likely be the same with an OTA broadcast and the satellite. The only difference you will notice is fewer artifacts on the OTA and you should not notice the weird swirling/blurring around people during a lot of movement.

I had a standard hdmi cable hooked into my receiver and tv and got a lot of interference, I upgraded to a monster 800 ultra series hdmi cable and noticed that most of it went away, but I still get some. The cable can make a difference, and in your case this may be the problem, but I feel the previous post is more than likely why.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Is it a HR24-500?

 

[TigerpounceTN]

I have a vip 722k receiver with a vizio 48inch 1080i capable picture. I notice a poor quality like you state with movies and lots of action. Two I can think of are war movies with lots of explosions and even shows with in car video, you'll notice a blurred outline around the window.

The picture quality will more than likely be the same with an OTA broadcast and the satellite. The only difference you will notice is fewer artifacts on the OTA and you should not notice the weird swirling/blurring around people during a lot of movement.

I had a standard hdmi cable hooked into my receiver and tv and got a lot of interference, I upgraded to a monster 800 ultra series hdmi cable and noticed that most of it went away, but I still get some. The cable can make a difference, and in your case this may be the problem, but I feel the previous post is more than likely why.

That one is easy. Dish Network picture quality is awful. We are talking about DirecTV, the home of adequate bitrates and full 1920x1080 channels. It is extremely unlikely to be the cable. HDMI is digital. If the tv is getting a signal and it isn't breaking up, then it is almost never the cable.

 

[DSpud]

LOL @ Monster Cable post....Welcome to Satelliteguys Mist....you will learn quickly here that you got hosed paying the extra cash for a Monster cable.

 

[raoul5788]

THE HD quality on the HR24 is not as good as the HD quality direct from the antenna signal.

I was watching the Redskins on my local Fox affiliate WTTG Channel 5 with my HR24 receiver which is hooked to the TV via HDMI. The HD quality was awful on both the satellite signal channel 5 and from my antenna signal channel 5.1. So I switched over to watch the antenna feed that is fed directly into my TV set and the picture was ten times better. Is there a way too adjust the picture on the HR24 or could the quality of the HDMI cable be the issue or is it that the HR24 just has inferior PQ

There are slight differences between an ota picture and one delivered through Directv. If the picture directly from your antenna is "10 times better" then you have something wrong either in your setup of the HR24 or in the cabling. There really isn't that much difference in the ota and Directv quality.

 

[Lkr]

I have a vip 722k receiver with a vizio 48inch 1080i capable picture. I notice a poor quality like you state with movies and lots of action. Two I can think of are war movies with lots of explosions and even shows with in car video, you'll notice a blurred outline around the window.

The picture quality will more than likely be the same with an OTA broadcast and the satellite. The only difference you will notice is fewer artifacts on the OTA and you should not notice the weird swirling/blurring around people during a lot of movement.

I had a standard hdmi cable hooked into my receiver and tv and got a lot of interference, I upgraded to a monster 800 ultra series hdmi cable and noticed that most of it went away, but I still get some. The cable can make a difference, and in your case this may be the problem, but I feel the previous post is more than likely why.

Big no no.

 

[charper1]

monster 800 ultra series hdmi @ Amazon = $20 + S/H

vs.

the same cable quality @ monoprice = $2.64 + S/H

Moral

You got ripped.

 

[tvropro]

OTA if they have no sub channels will look better then any pay service (Direct, Dish, Cable) There is only so much bandwidth, thats what limits the quality. Its called HD lite. The only thing that is better than a good OTA signal is the first generation broadcast master feed on C band.

HDMI cables are HDMI cables some are shielded better than others, that will prevent noise ingress. Since HDMI is digital the signal is either there or not. If you have a poor cable design that gets too much noise from ingress it wont get fuzzy or blurry. It will pixelate and drop in and out.

 

[TDK1044]

My OTA HD pictures are marginally better than the HD pictures out of my D* DVR, but there's not much in it. My HDMI cable cost me about $5 including shipping and the pictures are very good indeed.