I was with E* for almost 10 years before switching to D*. I couldn't stand the low quality HD on E*. I had a hard time watching any of their "HD" channels. It wasn't always that way on E*. Early on they had fabulous HD quality.
DIRECTV Announces New HD!
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 2K
- Views 221K
- Status
I was with E* for almost 10 years before switching to D*. I couldn't stand the low quality HD on E*. I had a hard time watching any of their "HD" channels. It wasn't always that way on E*. Early on they had fabulous HD quality.
When did the PQ quality drop? I think I switched to D in Sept 2007. It was before the Turbo stuff. At the time of the switch PQ appeared slightly better on D but I was content with E except for frustrations with E-5 at the 129 slot (lived in WA state at the time).
If the PQ is that bad on E, then I really have to hope that D catches up on national HD offerings.
I'm sure an E* sub will say different but I seen it said that E* broadcasts the 1080i channels at 1440 x 1080.
Resolution is not as important as bit rate when it comes to HD quality. E* is putting 8 HD channels per transponder, D* is putting only 5 HD channels per transponder. So E* is compressing WAY more.
E* subs may say different, but they would be wrong. D* is compressing more than I would like to see them doing, I can see compression artifacts in D*'s HD picture. But E* gives only 62% as much bandwidth on average. You can't hide that. It is extremely apparent to my eye.
So people can talk all they want but if you highly over compress a digital image, you lose quality. It may be that they just don't see the degradation, but it is there. I can see it.
E* is able to over compress because they support 8PSK. This does not improve the image quality, but it does improve error correction and enables them to squeeze in more channels and still work under less ideal conditions, like in rain storms.
So D* subs need to celebrate that D* never implemented 8PSK support in their receivers, for we have better HD quality because of it.
I would rather watch 854x480p with high bandwidth than low bandwidth, over-compressed 1440x1080i. Compression artifacts like contour mapping, macroblocking, and mosquito noise have no business in an HD image.
E* subs may say different, but they would be wrong. D* is compressing more than I would like to see them doing, I can see compression artifacts in D*'s HD picture. But E* gives only 62% as much bandwidth on average. You can't hide that. It is extremely apparent to my eye.
So people can talk all they want but if you highly over compress a digital image, you lose quality. It may be that they just don't see the degradation, but it is there. I can see it.
E* is able to over compress because they support 8PSK. This does not improve the image quality, but it does improve error correction and enables them to squeeze in more channels and still work under less ideal conditions, like in rain storms.
So D* subs need to celebrate that D* never implemented 8PSK support in their receivers, for we have better HD quality because of it.
I would rather watch 854x480p with high bandwidth than low bandwidth, over-compressed 1440x1080i. Compression artifacts like contour mapping, macroblocking, and mosquito noise have no business in an HD image.
It doesn't seem entirely reasonable to assume that the poster couldn't find out anything about TCM on the official TCM website.
When days seem like weeks, then you will understand "soon".
The official "begin rolling out" announcement of these channels was two months ago today.
DIRECTV, Inc. - DIRECTV Continues To Deliver More Full Time HD Than Any Other Provider With The Addition Of Over 30 New HD Channels -Bringing DIRECTV's HD Lineup to More Than 160
You're making some pretty sweeping statements based on math that ignores too many factors.
Ignoring the encoding schemes used is a major flaw of your argument. DISH's use of Ku band allows them to use considerably less forward error correction (FEC). DISH also uses 8PSK instead of QPSK which may result in considerably better bandwidth efficiency (>33%).
Further, assuming that compressing 20% more data is an incremental load on the MPEG4 compression equipment is also not wise -- remembering the seeingly incessant reports of a popular 720p channel macroblocking consistently during certain automobile races.
Repeating something frequently, as a mantra, doesn't make it so.
Using oversimplified math doesn't make it so.
The proof is in the blind side-by-side testing.
I have both Direc and dish...
Really both pictures are so very close.
In the end I would slightly give the nod to Direcs HD picture.
However, its just about a draw.
I also have Uverse-They come in last behind top to sat cos inHD..SD they rule.
When days seem like weeks, then you will understand "soon".
The official "begin rolling out" announcement of these channels was two months ago today.
DIRECTV, Inc. - DIRECTV Continues To Deliver More Full Time HD Than Any Other Provider With The Addition Of Over 30 New HD Channels -Bringing DIRECTV's HD Lineup to More Than 160
I know but they didn't tell us an exact date til last week DIRECTV Upcoming HD Channels
They generally don't say ahead of time when new channels will launch. It's usually at least a few days later when they say anything.
I know they don't publicly but I was hoping a DirecTV employee on this forum would spill the beans.
I know you are aware of Satelliteracer on dbstalk. He is the unofficial spiller of the beans!
Actually he gives plenty of details, just not the ones you want!
I'm sure Directv knows who he is an allows him to post what he does. If not, they could easily figure out who he is.It would seem so if you believe the DIRECTV nay-sayers. I don't know for sure.
On the other hand, some recognize that DIRECTV does some heavy-duty gamma processing and color punching that is inherently lossy in terms of detail (although it may make the content easier to compress).
In the end, both engage in heavy duty compression and simple analysis will not give you valid answers.
I find it comical how many people with TVs that don't do pixel for pixel display consume themselves with arguments over pixels.
It would seem so if you actually read the post by Dish subs whom have measured the actual resolution. So, I will take your answer as a yes.
If find it funny that how many people whom don't have DirecTV, consume themselves with arguments over DirecTV.
- Status
Similar threads
