The comparison of OTA and LIL HD does not help me because the Los Angeles HD LIL's are EXCELLENT. Hardly any difference. In fact the HD LIL is over all superior to the OTA, even when connected directly to the TV where jaggies are prominent, but not on the L.A. HD LIL's. L.A. HD LIL's are SUPERB! Now, let's hope Dish keeps it that way. They really are among the best looking HD channels on Dish. they always look superior to some of the sat HD channels. L.A. HD LIL's are a pleasure to watch.
HD picture quality worsening?
- Thread starter hvarma2008
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 5K
The comparison of OTA and LIL HD does not help me because the Los Angeles HD LIL's are EXCELLENT. Hardly any difference. In fact the HD LIL is over all superior to the OTA, even when connected directly to the TV where jaggies are prominent, but not on the L.A. HD LIL's. L.A. HD LIL's are SUPERB! Now, let's hope Dish keeps it that way. They really are among the best looking HD channels on Dish. they always look superior to some of the sat HD channels. L.A. HD LIL's are a pleasure to watch.
I think you are missing my point. Overall OTA HD has always been better than E*. Right E* HD LIL's are pretty well in the same category with my OTA, with the exception of PBS HD, which E* doesn't offer, but the PQ on PBS OTA blows all of E*'s HD PQ away.
I notice a softer HD picture now as compared to only a couple of weeks ago. I can especially notice this on Nick-HD as I am an avid Sponge Bob viewer. The catoon lines are much softer now and it's easier to notice this on cartoons. It was so much sharper before. It's not my TV or box either because I notice this on both my LCD TV w/211 box and my RPTV w/722k.
Jay
Jay
Not quiet believable
I'm sorry but I just have problem believing there is that much difference. They both are using the same encoders to transmit the programming to us. I just wonder if once you switched you had someone come in and help with the set-up of your set. There is just not that much difference seen by too many people for me to beleive just one. I also wonder if it is I now have Directv so of course it looks much better. Funny how the mind can get you to believe you made the best decision.
I'm sorry but I just have problem believing there is that much difference. They both are using the same encoders to transmit the programming to us. I just wonder if once you switched you had someone come in and help with the set-up of your set. There is just not that much difference seen by too many people for me to beleive just one. I also wonder if it is I now have Directv so of course it looks much better. Funny how the mind can get you to believe you made the best decision.
People will rationalize their decisions to switch by saying "Oh the hd picture looks so much better now that I switched !" when they switch from Dish to Directv. The truth is the picture did look slightly better to me when I had DIRECTV on HD but the sd picture sucked balls . I had both for some time a year or so ago and I noticed this but back then a lot of channels we watched were in still in sd , so I put this as a negative against DIRECTV. Then there was the receiver issues with the HR 21 compared to my 622 :NO comparison at all. THe 622 won in every category except in video on demand; Directv won on that one. Then personally, I hated the channel guide and where the channels were located with DIRECTV: Like a drunk layed them out. DIRECTV DID have more hd channels than DISH -back then-NOT now. So when I added up the cost with DIRECTV , I concluded I was paying so much more than DISH for the similar pack of programming. So in the end I said to myself the negatives out weighed the one positive of "slightly " better hd pq and the couple of hd channels I didn't have back then; Sci fi and FX. I kept DISH and dumped DIRECTV. I made the right decision for my family because DISH has those channels and more than DIRECTV in national and premium movie channels. The new 722k rocks with the ability to record 4 shows at one time; 2ota /2sat. DIRECTV still can't do that one. I don't even notice the hd picture quality being any different since I don't have DIRECTV or cable to compare to. Besides if I really want to make the hd picture shine I can always turn the contrast way up and the hd picture looks better than ever .
In my opinion, picture quality comparisons are futile. Some people think a super-bright, edge-enhanced, over-saturated image has a lot of POP and makes for a superior image. Others don't see obvious PQ flaws and think their U-Verse HD is the greatest thing ever. A lot of people think coax-fed 480i stretched to 46" is awesome HD, while others won't be happy with anything less than FiOS.
You've just got to be happy with what you see. IMO, Dish HD looks really good at 67" from 11 feet away.
A lot has happened since July 29th 2008. MPEG4, 8PSK and DVB-S2 upgrade, now their transponder Mux rate is around ~50Mbps. I still say anything sourced in MPEG4 is just passed through by DISH, just like DirecTV. Most of the
If DISH does anything to the signal they receive from the content providers, it would be to do something like substitute "P Fames" with "B Fames" in the mpeg stream which would effect motion blur but not the PQ of a static image.
Who Has The Best HD Picture? - The Satellite Dish | Blog on Multichannel News
I have evidence to the contrary. Forum rules prevent me from identifying the specifics, but on my FTA system I have recorded the original transport streams of H.264 HD master feeds in the clear. When I compare them to R5000 recordings of the raw transport streams from my DN subscribed receivers at the same time, the latter are downrezzed and are at substantially lower data rates. They have been recompressed. Sorry.
