Got SD/HD 2 Days Ago. Very dissappointed In Resolution

[Enragedalbinoyak]

If you can't even tell the difference between composite and HDMI, something is definitely wrong with your setup.

Maybe some of the programming you were watching was not true HD, many "HD channels" show only SD content.

I've tried both, and in my case, I can see the difference, but it's not big enough to buy an HDMI switch, or pull out the DTV every time I want to watch a DVD.

As for the SD not looking as good as with dish... What? I've had both, and I actually think the DTV looks significantly better. I liked my dish interface better, but the HD here is fantastic, as long as you're watching something that's actually in HD (and it's a bitch to tell for sure).

I noticed a big difference in quality when I switched from H20 to HR-21, it appeared to me as if the upconverter program was much better.

 

[bk57oh]

I've tried both, and in my case, I can see the difference, but it's not big enough to buy an HDMI switch, or pull out the DTV every time I want to watch a DVD.

As for the SD not looking as good as with dish... What? I've had both, and I actually think the DTV looks significantly better. I liked my dish interface better, but the HD here is fantastic, as long as you're watching something that's actually in HD (and it's a bitch to tell for sure).

I noticed a big difference in quality when I switched from H20 to HR-21, it appeared to me as if the upconverter program was much better.

I would agree, I have a 32 inch Sony. I have a feeling, maybe someone can confirm this, that the component vs. HDMI difference is much more noticeable on a bigger screen.

I have consistently noticed that the NBC HD picture gets "muddy." Watching the NHL game today it would go from crystal clear to muddy and then back again. I don't know if this is the fault of DTV, NBC or my local station.

I've been with DTV since '96 and have loved it every step of the way...even with the occasional stumble.

 

[JAG72]

I have not watched hockey on NBC this year but if it is anything like football you will be very disappointed with the picture quality. NBC was by far the worse station for carrying the NFL last year.

 

[WilliamC]

This is very true. You see, satellite and cable TV must compress the signals from each channel in order to offer that many in the bandwidth they are assigned. Your antenna is going to always bring in HD better than anything. Where I live, in the Los Angeles market, the locals on DTV are worse than with rabbit ears, but not as bad as you describe.

Actually EVERYONE compresses. Mpeg-2 which is what you get with OTA is also compressed though not as heavily as D* or E*. Usually with OTA you get 15-19 Mbps and with a highly compressed signal you are lucky if you get 11 Mbps. You must also take into account that the provider may also be playing with the resolution and it may be less than 1920x1080.

To the OP. I would try those HD channels that are broadcast in mpeg-4 natively. Starz Edge? and Starz Kids are both like this and the PQ is stunning. I compared Curse of the Golden Flower on one of these Channels to my Blu-ray Disc and was pleasantly surprised.

When I had my initial problems with E, talking to customer service and their supervisor did not help. Only when I contacted ceo@echostar.com did something happen to my satisfaction.
PS. I was polite and it didnt help!

I saw the opposite on the Miami Locals. The PQ was too soft and lacked the detail of OTA. There was an obvious loss od detail when compared to OTA on every channel.

 

[WilliamC]

Actually, many HD channels are starting to show more and more HD content. Some good ones to try, even if you don't like the programming, are Science Channel HD, Smithsonian HD and National Geographic HD. Even on a small 19 inch screen like mine, the difference is spectacular! If you aren't seeing a WOW picture on those channels, I would run through your cables and connections again or check your eyesight. Make sure that you run an HDMI cable directly from your receiver to the TV set and not connecting the sat receiver through a DVD player/recorder or other equipment and then to the TV. A direct connection is always the best.

Actually those channels you mentioned I would not demo. The image is very soft on most of the programming and most of the time there is upconverts running in stretch-o-vision which could confuse him. His best bet would be the premium movie channels if he has them.

 

[kokomogator]

I have not watched hockey on NBC this year but if it is anything like football you will be very disappointed with the picture quality. NBC was by far the worse station for carrying the NFL last year.

Yeah, NBC did stink but my Fox station was worse.....try checking out the PQ on HDTH, their nature shows are beautiful in HD. I have a 61" Sansung and it's just like being there...I also use HDMI exclusively. I switched from Dish to Direct and HD PQ is significantly better. Can't tell any difference in the SD, it all is pretty bad in comparison to HD.

 

[bk57oh]

Yeah, NBC did stink but my Fox station was worse.....try checking out the PQ on HDTH, their nature shows are beautiful in HD. I have a 61" Sansung and it's just like being there...I also use HDMI exclusively. I switched from Dish to Direct and HD PQ is significantly better. Can't tell any difference in the SD, it all is pretty bad in comparison to HD.

NHL on NESN always looks great to me. MSG good, but not as.

 

[ScottChez]

An other thing to try is check your TV.

Before, Movie, Pro, or Standard mode might of been the best. Now that everything is digital an other mode might be better. Your TV might need tweaked. OR someone might of tweaked the settings for what you had before making DTV look bad, reset it to factory.

Also check the HDMI vrs Component cables, some TVs look better on one or the other.

Just some ideas . . .

 

[Paul Wozniak]

If you can't even tell the difference between composite and HDMI, something is definitely wrong with your setup.

Maybe some of the programming you were watching was not true HD, many "HD channels" show only SD content.

Not always true. This is very dependent on the TV set you own. On my Sony, the difference is minute, but on other sets I've seen large differences.

 

[jacmyoung]

Not always true. This is very dependent on the TV set you own. On my Sony, the difference is minute, but on other sets I've seen large differences.

I hope you did not confuse component cables with composite cables. He was comparing HDMI with the composite A/V input.

 

[BKSinAZ]

I hope you did not confuse component cables with composite cables. He was comparing HDMI with the composite A/V input.

I meant the video cables. I did say component

 

[ercjncpr]

Actually those channels you mentioned I would not demo. The image is very soft on most of the programming and most of the time there is upconverts running in stretch-o-vision which could confuse him. His best bet would be the premium movie channels if he has them.

The times I have tuned in to those channels, they were not doing "stretch-o-vision (and yes I do know what that is)

 

[jacmyoung]

The times I have tuned in to those channels, they were not doing "stretch-o-vision (and yes I do know what that is)

But that does not mean they are HD. Upconverted 480i can have perfect aspect ratio.

 

[jacmyoung]

I meant the video cables. I did say component

We weren't talking about you, I knew you were using component cables.

 

[charper1]

What exactly is "a perfect aspect ratio"?

 

[jacmyoung]

What exactly is "a perfect aspect ratio"?

As not in "stretch-o-vision."

 

[charper1]

OK so OAR (original aspect ratio)?

 

[jacmyoung]

OK so OAR (original aspect ratio)?

OAR is just part of the correct aspect ratios (maybe that's it, correct, the word perfect may be confusing). I used to think OAR was the only way to go like many OAR purists, but apparently most people do not mind filling up the full 16x9 screen all the time.

So my correct aspect ratio means all visible images on screen are in correct proportions, sometimes maybe cut off on top and bottom, or on two sides, or even all four sides, but never stretched nor squeezed therefore never distorted.

In the old days when OAR was insisted on by HD early adopters all the time, most of us had only RPTVs which almost all had variously degrees of over scan, so technically none of us were getting OAR. Now a days flat panels have less or no overscan, but most people who own flat panels today don't care about OAR, many don't even care if it is showing HD or SD upconverts. Ironic isn't it?

 

[Paul Wozniak]

I hope you did not confuse component cables with composite cables. He was comparing HDMI with the composite A/V input.

I wasn't. I stand by my words. On some sets, the difference between component and HDMI is virtually nonexistent, on others it is instantly noticeable.

 

[jacmyoung]

I wasn't. I stand by my words. On some sets, the difference between component and HDMI is virtually nonexistent, on others it is instantly noticeable.

I agree with you. But he did say composite vs. HDMI, which is not how most of us describe component cable connection.

Read what he said yourself: "...None of the Sd channels look as good as they did on Dish and I feel the same way as you about the HD. With the old setup I was using component cable only and am now using HDMI and the composite cables. BTW, I've been switching between composite and HDMI and can't tell any difference..."

Clearly he knew the difference between component and composite, yet he compared composite and HDMI on his new TV. It could be a misundestanding, but I like to have him clarify for me, not you.