What the heck up with D* vs Dish re: HD

[Jimbo]

Just because you get a channel OTA does not mean it is uncompressed. Many local stations have multicast channels running (dividing up the bandwidth, causes problems during heavy action in HD) which kills the quality of the video.

mlb,
Can you show me where an OTA signal going directly into my TV HD tuner is MORE compressed than ANY sat. signal ????

Jimbo

 

[raoul5788]

mlb,
Can you show me where an OTA signal going directly into my TV HD tuner is MORE compressed than ANY sat. signal ????

Jimbo

During the NCAA tournament the local CBS station was showing three games, one hd and two in sd. The first sd signal was watchable, but the second was like a fifth or sixth generation vhs copy. While technically not compressed, it was so bitstarved as to be unwatchable.

 

[Brewer4]

During the NCAA tournament the local CBS station was showing three games, one hd and two in sd. The first sd signal was watchable, but the second was like a fifth or sixth generation vhs copy. While technically not compressed, it was so bitstarved as to be unwatchable.

It was tough even on a 15 inch screen. Good idea but it was almost better getting the internet version on your laptop. I did like the one SD and HD mix. So good made getting the extra March Madness plan not worth the price.

 

[mlb]

mlb,
Can you show me where an OTA signal going directly into my TV HD tuner is MORE compressed than ANY sat. signal ????

Jimbo

I think the others have done a great job of pointing out examples... it all depends on your local station and whether it multicasts (runs more than 1 channel on their digital signal). If they do that, it takes away bandwidth from the HD feed. 720p generally can handle 1 other channel with it, 1080i looks like crap with another channel. Some stations like to have an HD feed, an SD feed, and a weather radar all running simultaneously on their digital feed. During graphic intensive parts of shows the quality drops due to not having enough bandwidth... trust me and the others, however, OTA can (and in some cases does) look worse than satellite.

 

[Jimbo]

I think the others have done a great job of pointing out examples... it all depends on your local station and whether it multicasts (runs more than 1 channel on their digital signal). If they do that, it takes away bandwidth from the HD feed. 720p generally can handle 1 other channel with it, 1080i looks like crap with another channel. Some stations like to have an HD feed, an SD feed, and a weather radar all running simultaneously on their digital feed. During graphic intensive parts of shows the quality drops due to not having enough bandwidth... trust me and the others, however, OTA can (and in some cases does) look worse than satellite.

So you guys have given me an isolated situation, I agree the MM situation was not good.

Were you able to watch any of those other feeds on the SAT .1 or.2 , .3, the answer is NO, therefore you are not comparing equal channels.

I agree with the sub channels taking away from the HD bandwidth and I wish they would quite running sub channels, at least in primetime.

Jimbo

 

[Madtown HD Junkie]

I guess I was staying with D* for the ST but that is only one afternoon of one day and I want more HD overall and they have only dropped in TNT and ESPN2 since ??? i am not sure even. Now like 3 more new ones and more plus voom's old channles too bad D* can't get it going a little faster.

 

[Jimbo]

I guess I was staying with D* for the ST but that is only one afternoon of one day and I want more HD overall and they have only dropped in TNT and ESPN2 since ??? i am not sure even. Now like 3 more new ones and more plus voom's old channles too bad D* can't get it going a little faster.

I really think D* is holding back from adding these few new channels till they get the MPEG4 problem figured out...

For all the "DISH adds this and that D* bashers"

D* added UHD long before DISH, not even sure if they have it now. also ESPN2 HD just came abourd not long ago, We got them in what October of last year......

Jimbo

 

[riffjim4069]

How silly of me not to realize that DIRECTV is the HDTV Leader...it says so right on their web site. No need for any stinkin' patience nor sad faces when D* is already #1.

P.S. some people actually believe this...along with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Ferry!:haha

 

[mlb]

So you guys have given me an isolated situation, I agree the MM situation was not good.

Were you able to watch any of those other feeds on the SAT .1 or.2 , .3, the answer is NO, therefore you are not comparing equal channels.

I agree with the sub channels taking away from the HD bandwidth and I wish they would quite running sub channels, at least in primetime.

Jimbo

You asked for an example, we gave it to you. The entire point is that many people have terrible OTA HDTV as well... you can't use it as the "standard", as many people like to do.

 

[Jimbo]

How silly of me not to realize that DIRECTV is the HDTV Leader...it says so right on their web site. No need for any stinkin' patience nor sad faces when D* is already #1.

P.S. some people actually believe this...along with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Ferry!:haha

I seriously hope D* does not beleive that ....
Someone is doing a wonderful job in thier advertizing dept......

Afterall, Somebody up there loves me ....please ...

Of course that is only oriented towards the NEW SUB, to get thier attention, they really never have done much for the existing sub ....

Jimbo

 

[arxaw]

You asked for an example, we gave it to you. The entire point is that many people have terrible OTA HDTV as well... you can't use it as the "standard", as many people like to do.

If D* takes an OTA HD MPEG2 channel that's multicasting, uplinks it to their sat center, then downconverts it from 1920x1080i to 1280x1080i (HD Lite), converts it to MPEG4 and sends it to a D* subscriber, it couldn't possibly look as good as the original OTA channel, even though that channel is multicasting.

 

[mlb]

Was he comparing OTA vs HD LiL? I didn't see that... maybe I am confused, but I thought he was saying you can tell how bad all D* HD was (TNTHD, etc.) by comparing it to your local OTA HD.

 

[arxaw]

I thought the comparison was OTA vs HD LIL, but maybe I was confused.

(I don't consider TNTHD an HD channel, since the vast majority of their programming is stretchted/upconverted reruns of SD material)

 

[Brewer4]

The basketball games look good so its enough to justify the channel to me. I actually like TNT's coverage.

 

[Jimbo]

Was he comparing OTA vs HD LiL? I didn't see that... maybe I am confused, but I thought he was saying you can tell how bad all D* HD was (TNTHD, etc.) by comparing it to your local OTA HD.

I was comparing , as arxaw mentioned.

OTA vs D* LIL.

I don't have an issue with D* Sports HD channels, movie channels are generally not as sharp.

Of course, anything shot LIVE in HD will be better than something recorded.

Jimbo

 

[LOBO2999]

I called D the other day about something else and ask why E had more HD than D and he told me E's HD is not real HD its just 16x9 not HD, lol , I said what about the channels that you both have are the E's HD ,he said no, he said what D has is real HD .

 

[Jimbo]

I called D the other day about something else and ask why E had more HD than D and he told me E's HD is not real HD its just 16x9 not HD, lol , I said what about the channels that you both have are the E's HD ,he said no, he said what D has is real HD .

Then he has never seen REAL HD

 

[charper1]

These are the kind of CSRs that need to be fired; period. This type of mis-info by a handfull of knuckleheads feeds into the crazy conspiracy theory junk.

 

[PMKS]

I'm in the sticks, I can't get any OTA HD....

I get all four of the network MPEG-2 feeds, along with the regular HD package from D*. I agree the PQ is crappy, especially the FOX MPEG-2 feed at times.

D* really does need to play catch-up. If it weren't for the fact I fear not having the HD networks if I swapped to E*, I'd have swapped already. :tux:

 

[SRust]

Well, I've waited long enough for more HD. I have been with D* for 10 years & am having my E* install Monday. E* has 3-4 times the HD & the SD pq couldn't be any worse than the sub-VHS quality garbage D* has been passing as "100% digital" for the last several years.