DIRECTV commits to Ultra-HDTV
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 8K
- Status
What do you call "FULL RES" ?
I'm not sure that the Resolution is the issue.
Many channels look GREAT, while others don't, also you can watch a show that looks OK and the next one looks GREAT, same channel, same res.
uncompressed is what i think the op was getting too. i think....... if so he right master hd feeds are grrreat
This is true, but you better plan on losing alot of channels in order to do it.
Uncompressed takes up a TON more room, thus well have to pick from about 10 channels, instead of the 200+, keep in mind that those 10 channels would be it, thats all and you know you can't get everybody to settle on those 10 channels !
Resolution is not the issue, its bitrate/bandwidth. Keep in mind Blu-ray movies are around 35mbps, I think Directv's HD is around 6mbps, and even Blu-ray is "compressed". Best thing we can hope for is codec improvements (which are coming) that give us better PQ for the same bitrate.
This is the next step
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding
This is the next step
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding
Jason Whiddon said:
Exactly, I was getting at if they gave me bluray quality via satellite I'd be happy. And I'd have no problem losing half the channels to do so. SD isn't nearly as bad a most people think, it just looks that way because it is so over compressed. Same thing happened with HD, looked great early on, now it doesn't even compare and every channel shows compression artifacts.
Before the introduction of pixel matrix TVs, resolution was a measure of picture detail. If you use that metric, there is room for improvement.
I'd just like if the channels that are broadcasting now would just improve their video quality. Comparing a baseball game broadcast on YES and most other networks is like night and day. When you remove all of the ESPN clutter their picture can range anywhere from great to miserable. It's just so hit or miss. With how many billions are spent in television broadcasting you'd think you could get a consistent quality HD picture in 2012.
Keep in mind a lot of stadiums are not setup properly, on game day there are a lot of cameras in use (wide shots dont look so hot, on field shots look so great), and even cameras have to be calibrated. Lotta variables. Then you have shows like NCIS and Walking Dead, which look like crap and its the way they are shot.
For me, calibrate the display, have a good provider like Directv, and just enjoy it for what it is. You can have the best gear in town, and cannot overcome source issues, or "directors intent".
Where you I put the $ 20 disc you referred to, you can't put a disc in my HDTV ... What happens if I use a cheap DVR/Blu Ray unit, does that effect the picture quality that your trying to improve ?
What happens when I put this disc in my High End player and I don't come up with a MUCH better looking picture when it's done ?
Just saying ... I've never had the chance to use a disc to calibrate, but the TV looks damn good already.
(see Signature)
It doesn't matter how cheap or expensive your Blu Ray player is, as long as you use the same input on your TV, you can calibrate it with a calibration disc. The process will correct for any errors in the input (on your display) and any errors in your Blue Ray player. But if you wanted to calibrate an input on your display to use with a non-Blu Ray device (like a satellite receiver) then yes, it matters very much how accurate your player is. In that case, you'd need to spend $500 to $2000 on an Oppo player, or just get the Panasonic BDT 210 (much cheaper).
From what your saying , I think, I can get a calibration disc and swap my BR player over to the Input my Sat recvr is on, calibrate it and then put the Sat back on the input and be good, right ?
That said, I REALLY don't think my Pioneer Elite KURO Pro-151FD needs Calibration.
Yes, you can calibrate an input using your Blu Ray player. But like I said, almost every player out there has built in errors that make them terrible for that purpose EXCEPT the Oppo players or the Panasonic BDT 210. Then again, it's not going to matter that much anyway, because devices like satellite receivers and cable boxes broadcast such poor quality content, that "close enough is good enough".
If you are concerned with video fidelity, every display device needs calibration. Especially more so for high end televisions that have good calibration controls (10 or 20 point gray / white scale, complete color controls, etc). There is no such thing as a pre-calibrated, or auto-calibrating display. Calibration pays off the most when watching very good quality content, such as that from a Blu Ray or HTPC.
I'd love to see higher quality HD PQ. Why do we constantly see calls for uncompressed HD, I don't think some of these types of posters understand that for transmission of HD it has to be compressed to be able to fit down the transmission pipe.
Less compression will yield to less artifacting and slightly better PQ but it is always a balancing act between bandwidth constraints and PQ. Again there is no such thing as uncompressed HD, heck Blu-Ray is usually the best PQ available but even that is compressed, HD HAS TO BE COMPRESSED.
John
It can be an important question depending on how anal you are about accuracy. There are "calibration" solutions that use simple colored filters and they are more subjective than something like a Colormunki or a Datacolor Spyder that takes electronic measurements.
IIRC, the more popular term for the typical calibration devices is "colorimeter"
Right, someone may call a "calibration" nothing more than a blue filter and some patterns on a disc. While that is something very basic, and very cheap, it is absolutely better than nothing. (Everyone, and I mean everyone, should be doing it.) It is way better than just "eye balling" it to preference. But it is not anywhere near the accuracy of a colorimeter. And a colorimeter isn't as accurate as a spectrophotometer.
- Status
Similar threads
