I have the HR10 HD DVR. Last night I watched Rome on HBO in HD and thought to myself, why do so many people in this forum complain about the picture quality of Directv? I have seen other people with HDTV on Comcast, etc. and it is abolutely no better or worse than DTV. It seems like this forum has just become an outlet for complainers. With the HR10, most of the SD channels look good too, some better than others. The HR10 has been a much better receiver in PQ than other HD recievers than I've owned thus the reason for not upgrading to the HR20 yet.
Directv HD Quality
- Thread starter coota
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 7K
- Status
Your experience in this forum is less than 12 months old and you have 11 posts. You do not have a clue about what you are saying. Rome is quite possibly the best looking HDTV material there is period which has a lot to do with it. But it is still missing about 1/3 of the picture information on Directv. Just imagine what it could look like.
You are very wrong. First, the user could have been viewing the forum for years before he made his first post (just like Talk Radio, 98% listen 2% actually call in and talk). It doesn't matter how many posts someone has because if someone doesn't know what they are talking about and posts all the time, does that make them knowledgeable?
As for the PQ - you may be correct, but I think that you have no right calling someone out and saying that they don't have a clue, FWIW.
I agree, # of posts do not really give a true account of user experience/inexperience of this really touchy subject.
I will say that some of the picture quality on Directv is really good but I agree with vurbano in that it could be a lot better!!!!!!
"HD-Lite" can look good but full HD would look a heck of a lot better
I will say that some of the picture quality on Directv is really good but I agree with vurbano in that it could be a lot better!!!!!!
"HD-Lite" can look good but full HD would look a heck of a lot better
Lets not turn this into a battle-Vurbano we are not here to degrade others as Directv does with their service, if you dont have anything to say about the topic, please dont jump on the user, for all you know he could be an expert.
I think the majority of complaints regarding HD on D* is the issues with pixilation
In my experience HD PQ has grown exponentially for D* over the last 6 mos.
In the beginning there were issues with pixilation that made the picture almost unwatchable. Actually I can remember turning CSI or Lost to the local SD channel because I couldnt stand the picture break up. Sometimes it would just freeze.
NESN HD was a joke last summer. They fixed their issues during Hockey season and the problems are gone.
When you read most of the posts regarding HD PQ its mostly from E* subs claiming that E* has a better pic. Now E*'s signal is watered down too but we are here to talk about D*.
Vurbano's gripes about D*'s HD are right on the money. Right now D*'s signal is watered down. About 2/3's of what true HD should be. I agree with Vurbano. I felt ripped off.
D* hasnt completed their total change over to HD. My hope is that when D*'s sats go up this year their HD will be in ful HD. Some say it wont..some say it will. We will only have to wait and find out.
In my experience HD PQ has grown exponentially for D* over the last 6 mos.
In the beginning there were issues with pixilation that made the picture almost unwatchable. Actually I can remember turning CSI or Lost to the local SD channel because I couldnt stand the picture break up. Sometimes it would just freeze.
NESN HD was a joke last summer. They fixed their issues during Hockey season and the problems are gone.
When you read most of the posts regarding HD PQ its mostly from E* subs claiming that E* has a better pic. Now E*'s signal is watered down too but we are here to talk about D*.
Vurbano's gripes about D*'s HD are right on the money. Right now D*'s signal is watered down. About 2/3's of what true HD should be. I agree with Vurbano. I felt ripped off.
D* hasnt completed their total change over to HD. My hope is that when D*'s sats go up this year their HD will be in ful HD. Some say it wont..some say it will. We will only have to wait and find out.
..............................
As for the bit-starving, the problem isn't so much D* as the FCC. They published in 2001 that re-transmission does not need to meet the bitrate of the original broadcast, as long as the picture is not materially degraded. That clause empowers D*, E* and cable to do a lot as long as the picture is viewable. Thanks for nothing to the FCC and your elected Congressmen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if you don't include those several weeks were the red dots plagued the mpeg 4 locals.
NESN seems ok for the most part, but I still have more pixelation issues on cbs and nbc boston than I should, usually during fast moving scenes.
Red Dot? I have never seen the red dot. Never been an issue with my setup. Heck Ive never heard of the read dot plague till now.
Actually searched red dot on this site and came up with nothing.
Although I did find a thread where people noticed that you say you are on D*s side but keep coming up with negative comments. I didnt know what to think, but now when you post something about this phantom red dot Im beginning to see other peoples point.
Strange you didn't notice the red dots, it ruined the superbowl for many. Too many reports for it to be an isolated issue, check dbstalk, there was a huge thread about it.
Watching long enough HD (from beginning of sat transmission ) and _measuring_ it, I would repeat to you - IT WAS MUCH BETTER at beginning ( some ppl have taped that and can easily proove it ); search here for many battles over "HD-Lite";
but what most important WE HAVE materially degraded pictures NOW !
Breackouts and macroblocking and stuttering - it's MATERIALLY DEGRADATION of content !
Too bad you did not see the www.stophdlite.com webpage when it was up - it actually had an example of Rome from Dish and Rome from Directv from the opening.
The details in the circle were obvious as to what HDLITE did and what it COULD look like.
I received just the response that I expected from people in this discussion group, especially from vurbano. What difference does it make how many responses I have submitted to this forum. Vurbano, what give you the authority to be an expert at picture quality, etc.? Obvsiously there are many satisfied customers at Directv for the company to have the growth they're experiencing. Yes, maybe the quality can be better, and I'm sure it will continue to improve, but in my experience (which I guess is none since I haven't submitted many responses here), it has a very good picture quality. Maybe vurbano's tv is a piece of crap.
Guys, PLease keep this thread from being overrun with personal attacks, I want to keep this thread open, but if it keeps up its Gone, thank you.
Hey, I'm not the one you need to argue with. It's a matter that your congressmen and the FCC jointly agreed on, and they are who you must prove it to. You'll also have to refute expert testimony by the sat & cable industry.
Consider these points:
1. Tapes. Having tapes does not prove anything. Tapes can be tampered-with. Tapes are magnetic storage and degrade, sometimes fairly quickly.
2. You mention measurements. Have you got quantitative measurements? If so, what instrument was used and what were the measurements?
3. You say if watched from beginning of sat transmission (is that the start of today's program, or the day HD was introduced to sat?). If you are talking 2+ years ago, how does anybody know that it's not your eyes that are aging?
4. You say WE HAVE materially degraded pictures NOW. By whose definition of MATERIALLY DEGRADED? Yours? You need to meet the definition of the FCC, which is going to be different from yours. (not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying you aren't proving yourself)
5. Breakouts, macroblocking and stuttering? I never see any of those, and I've had 5 HD stb's over 3 years with 3 dishes in 2 houses 600 miles apart. Besides, you need to prove that it's the transmission and not the electronics presenting it (your dish, cabling, stb, and tv). Proof in this case means providing instrumented measurements that demonstrate that your dish is properly aimed and giving strong signal (provide measurements); that the cabling is good and providing strong signal to the STB's (measure again); that the stb & tv meet their oem calibration.
It's a pretty steep hill climb to prove it to the people who make decisions. I've read a lot of the threads, and I have not seen where anybody anywhere on satguys has even a shred of what it's going to take to push HD-lite anywhere. The providers admit to bitskimming and to trimming bandwidth; the disagreement is over the threshold of materially-degraded. They say 'no'. The FCC says 'no'. Tapes, inspection by the human eye, and crying bloody murder aren't going to get anywhere. You need to quantify the case with actual data that can be verified and repeated.
I'm reading a lot of emotion, and not much in the way of proof.
Actually I would post the Rome Captures that you say are gorgeous from D* via HD-LITE and the same from Dish at full resolution and bitrate that I supplied on AVS years ago and to STOPHDLITE.com, but as certain moderators have an issue posting full resolution pictures and like to ban people as they apparently feel 56k dialup is the norm for Satelliteguys.us users, I don't see it worth getting banned to prove a n00b wrong.
And I agree with Vurbano, that 9 times out of 10 most defending D's picture are new members with posts below 50. The rest usually have either 1) EDTVs, 2)native 720p HDTVs 3) smaller screens or 4)glasses.
- Status
