HD Picture Quality
- Thread starter redelephants
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 256
- Views 22K
How many times did this occur tonight just that one time? BTW from 27' away that thumbnail in your post looks great on a 15" monitor, perhaps this is how the encoders are being "tuned" by dish.
Wow. Glad my IQ on Dish didn't look like that at any point that I was watching. Something has to be wrong with your set up.
I wouldn't know
If I were able to drink a 12 pack of beer not sure I'd even be able to see it that well. Most likely I'd either be passed out or or be calling Dinosaurs at the porcelain bowl.
thats how my tv looks after a 12 pack of beer! lol
If I were able to drink a 12 pack of beer not sure I'd even be able to see it that well. Most likely I'd either be passed out or or be calling Dinosaurs at the porcelain bowl.
The coupling between BER and SNR is a logical one. In general, the higher the SNR, the fewer the errors in the channel transmission; or simply stated, as the SNR increases, the BER decreases. Conversely, as the SNR decreases, the BER will increase, at which point the communications channel typically reduces the data rate (making each bit a little longer) in an attempt to reduce the number of errors in the transmission.
AND
Notice that as the SNR decreases, there is a graceful degradation, or roll-off, in channel performance. For example, as a 5.8 GHz signal's SNR is degraded, the channel will tend to remain operational, albeit at a reduced data rate.
Asset Tracking in Industrial Settings?A Review of Wireless Technologies Part 1: The Basics | Sensors Magazine
That is something that you will not see as proof. Anyone that has tuned in a sat system, or even a simple OTA antenna knows this.
What you might get is another 5 or 6 paragraph technical explanation of why he must be right, and it may or may not be related to the question you asked.
I really think technology is spoiling us all. My pictures on the 55 are always clear but sometimes they are clearer than others.Not sure why, but not worth the effort to find out.
But along the same lines, I can't watch a SD show or even go to the theater anymore.
I am always comparing the images and my TV is winning hands down.
But along the same lines, I can't watch a SD show or even go to the theater anymore.
I am always comparing the images and my TV is winning hands down.
Diminishing returns
What you are not realizing is there is a point of diminishing returns on that BER to SNR. This is accomplished well before there is any loss of signal. If you have signal level of say 30 then it will be as good as a signal level of more than 50. As I said the lowest signals I have is in the 50's and some of the signals I get are in the mid 80's. I can see no difference in the pq of those that have 85 over those that are in the 50's. Your waterfall as you like to call it is a very fast drop off. Which up until recently was know as the cliff effect. Well the drop off may not be a straight 90 degree drop off but even your graphs are show something like a a sharp curve then an almost straight drop after the "knee". You just don't get that you are trying to push a belief that true in the "old" days and it just doens' hold up that well anymore. I wish you would get a clue that we are not going to bite on the idea that you keep trying to shove down our throats. Your proof just doesn't hold up.
What you are not realizing is there is a point of diminishing returns on that BER to SNR. This is accomplished well before there is any loss of signal. If you have signal level of say 30 then it will be as good as a signal level of more than 50. As I said the lowest signals I have is in the 50's and some of the signals I get are in the mid 80's. I can see no difference in the pq of those that have 85 over those that are in the 50's. Your waterfall as you like to call it is a very fast drop off. Which up until recently was know as the cliff effect. Well the drop off may not be a straight 90 degree drop off but even your graphs are show something like a a sharp curve then an almost straight drop after the "knee". You just don't get that you are trying to push a belief that true in the "old" days and it just doens' hold up that well anymore. I wish you would get a clue that we are not going to bite on the idea that you keep trying to shove down our throats. Your proof just doesn't hold up.
You bolded it, so you apparently think it's key. We have transmitters and receivers. The transmitter at Dish sends a signal to the receiver on the satellite, the satellite then transmits that signal to your receiver at home. Disagree so far?
Now, when the signal is encapsulated for transmission, there's certain parameters used (FEC & Data rate among them). The receiver then uses those parameters to see the signal. Now, according to you (what YOU highlighted in bold), the data rate changes with a lower signal to noise ratio. Now, as this transmission is going across the country, to millions(?) of receivers, can you explain how ONE receiver with a bad signal will somehow indicate to the transmitter the data rate needs to be changed? Keep in mind ALL the other receivers across the country would then have to change THEIR data rates to match what is transmitted.
That is totally not true. Blu-ray quality at any distance is noticeable and looks fantastic. Blu-ray completely kills Dish PQ (obviously, it should since the compression is much better and it is 1080p). Even Cox cable is clearly better than Dish. I did a side by side comparison while I still had both hooked up. Again, some channels are better than others. However, I should not be able to see compression artifacts when I am sitting over 10 feet away from my t.v...which is exactly what I see with Dish.
At 10 feet I never see any compression artifacts on Dish unless they are showing a program that itself has a bad transfer. Maybe you need a better set?
And at 1 foot, the best BD will indeed have noise and compression artifacts on any television set. You're just complaining to be an annoying voice. :up
