New to the forum here... I've searched and read here for threads on picture quality of Direct versus Dish, so I know this has been discussed before; sorry for the rehash, but I'm not seeing what most others are seeing. I just switched from Dish to Direct TV yesterday, after 15 years with Dish (due to this AMC fiasco; Breaking Bad starts in 2 days...) Before switching, the first thing I'd researched was whether there was any picture quality differences between Dish and Direct. I'm a huge stickler for picture quality, and it's by far my #1 criteria. Most sources I found said the two services are pretty comparable, maybe a slight edge to D* (similar to what threads here mostly say). So I signed up, with picture quality seeming to not be a problem I had to worry about.
But as soon as I saw the D* image, I was fairly shocked at the difference. I've got a Pioneer Kuro Elite Pro-151FD, 60", and have had it hooked up to a Dish Vip722 for the last several years. With D*, I had the new HMC (HR34) installed. I'm using 1080i out, just as I did with the Dish 722. And to my eyes, the D* picture is definitely worse. The image on almost every station is way softer, much less "crisp", less contrast, and worse color saturation. I spent last evening watching several shows that I watch regularly, and was therefore pretty familiar with how they'd always looked on Dish. Like Conan on TBS last night. Everything on the set was less sharp, and even people's faces seemed to have less detail. As for the colors, it seemed like the whole image was skewed slightly to the "blue" side, from what I'd always been used to on Dish.
Then I tried "Covert Affairs" on USA network, and it was very similar there. Just a real "washed-out" look to the picture, versus the "crisp-ness" I always had on Dish. Colors looked very flat overall. Then I tried "Aliens" on one of the movie channels, and that was a real shocker. The great thing about the Kuro is how deep the blacks are. I haven't watched that movie on Dish in a long time, but on D*, the blacks were really poor, with almost a "greenish" tinge to them. Tried some golf on Golf Channel, and definitely couldn't see as much fine detail as usual (although I know their HD broadcasts can vary from tournament to tournament.)
Even on the CBS evening news, I was shocked at how much "softer" the image looked on D*, like it just didn't have the detail in the main shots of Pelley at his anchor desk.
Since what I'm seeing is so different from what I've read in similar threads on this forum, I was hoping someone might be able to help with some insights on why D* looks so much worse to me? Appreciate any help...
But as soon as I saw the D* image, I was fairly shocked at the difference. I've got a Pioneer Kuro Elite Pro-151FD, 60", and have had it hooked up to a Dish Vip722 for the last several years. With D*, I had the new HMC (HR34) installed. I'm using 1080i out, just as I did with the Dish 722. And to my eyes, the D* picture is definitely worse. The image on almost every station is way softer, much less "crisp", less contrast, and worse color saturation. I spent last evening watching several shows that I watch regularly, and was therefore pretty familiar with how they'd always looked on Dish. Like Conan on TBS last night. Everything on the set was less sharp, and even people's faces seemed to have less detail. As for the colors, it seemed like the whole image was skewed slightly to the "blue" side, from what I'd always been used to on Dish.
Then I tried "Covert Affairs" on USA network, and it was very similar there. Just a real "washed-out" look to the picture, versus the "crisp-ness" I always had on Dish. Colors looked very flat overall. Then I tried "Aliens" on one of the movie channels, and that was a real shocker. The great thing about the Kuro is how deep the blacks are. I haven't watched that movie on Dish in a long time, but on D*, the blacks were really poor, with almost a "greenish" tinge to them. Tried some golf on Golf Channel, and definitely couldn't see as much fine detail as usual (although I know their HD broadcasts can vary from tournament to tournament.)
Even on the CBS evening news, I was shocked at how much "softer" the image looked on D*, like it just didn't have the detail in the main shots of Pelley at his anchor desk.
Since what I'm seeing is so different from what I've read in similar threads on this forum, I was hoping someone might be able to help with some insights on why D* looks so much worse to me? Appreciate any help...