jaw2012
join:2008-08-01
019405
| [HD] HD Channels Quality
Fios has the best HD PQ bar none. But, it seems to me that some HD channels are better than others, specifically Smithsonian HD. This channel always looks just AMAZING! It seems to be just a tad bit better than others. (CNN, ESPN, Palladia, HDnet)
Now on the other end of the spectrum, some HD channels look just OK. For instance, Food network, A&E, WealthTV, HGTV all just don't seem to have that WOW factor as those above. Is this just me or am I right? |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | The Food network HD looks good to me. 
Seriously though, it usually has the most textures and colors and oftentimes is the best channel to show off your new HD TV. |
|
nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY | reply to jaw2012
It is called subjective viewer opinion - you will have some people who feel the same as you, but others will feel a different way. |
|
jaw2012
join:2008-08-01
019405
| said by nycdave  :It is called subjective viewer opinion - you will have some people who feel the same as you, but others will feel a different way. Really?? No kidding...maybe thats why I posted, to get users opinions and to compare/contrast with my viewpoint. |
|
PJL
join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jaw2012
Because not all HD content is "created equal" in some cases all can agree that some HD channels provide better HD quality than others. HDNet and HDNet Movies have always taken great care that their content is created from the best masters available with the highest bit rate recording and transmission possible to ensure high quality HD programming is being delivered. Some other services do not take this approach (they use more compression to lower bandwidth, for example) and therefore the HD quality is not as good.
You're correct that "quality" is in the eye of the beholder, and some like a crisper, more pristine HD look and other a softer look. I tend to go with the former. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to jaw2012
Just a thought. Perhaps it has something to do with the method the content provider is sending the signal. My main TV has a native resolution of 720p, and I have the STB set to display HD content in this format. Perhaps those channels broadcasting HD in 1080i are being degraded ever so slightly when compared to the channels being sent in 720p format? I believe you can look up each channels' source on the STB, but maybe that was just a dream.
Although, from the top of my head, I seem to remember ESPN being 720p and HD Net being 1080i, so that would not jibe with what you are seeing.
I agree that the Smithsonian HD channel looks good. When I switch to that channel, it's a bit mesmerizing and difficult to change the channel. |
|
jammmin
join:2000-12-14
Upper Marlboro, MD | reply to PJL
HD Net has the best PQ on Fios. This was also the case when I had Directv. |
|
darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR | reply to jaw2012
I adore Palladia HD. |
|
JeepMatt
Delaware Fios
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Wilmington, DE
1 edit | Personally,
I think the Weather Channel and CSN-Philly have some of the best PQ.
But, as Jaw mentioned, you do sometimes see grainy-ness on HGTV and Food, depending on the show. |
|
lets456
join:2008-01-21
Hainesport, NJ
| reply to jaw2012
said by jaw2012 :Fios has the best HD PQ bar none. But, it seems to me that some HD channels are better than others, specifically Smithsonian HD. This channel always looks just AMAZING! It seems to be just a tad bit better than others. (CNN, ESPN, Palladia, HDnet) Now on the other end of the spectrum, some HD channels look just OK. For instance, Food network, A&E, WealthTV, HGTV all just don't seem to have that WOW factor as those above. Is this just me or am I right? See, I found out it's "material dependent" meaning, it depends what or which show is on which channel, how it's recorded or reproduced.
For example, sometimes material on HD Net or HD Theater is breathtaking (Sorry, got that from Seinfeld) and other times material is blurry when the camera pans...just awful. Got it?
Long story short generally live sports look best, then "true HD" news (anchor rooms), then material shot in HD and properly fed to Verizon.
Overall, all Verizon's HD stations are better than what I have experienced from Comcast and D*.... |
|
theQuickness
join:2002-04-13
Tonawanda, NY
| Ya thats basically right.
It depends on the mpeg2 compression rate at which the station chooses to distribute the program to the cable providers.
As well as the the type of camera that's used to film the program, ie: there wasn't HD cameras when Seinfeld was being produced. So the show will not look as good as Spiderman III. Premium channels like HBO and movie channels are filmed on high quality cameras.
Then lastly it depends on the cable provider's(tw,vz,cox)compression rate at which they redistribute the broadcast to home viewers. Which is why Vz is the best. Cable mso's have to compress the program at a higher rate because they don't have enough bandwidth on their network. (see channel bonding docsis 3.0) |
|
Clearpix
join:2008-01-17
Wilmington, DE
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to jaw2012
PQ also has a lot to do with whether the content is HD or upconverted. TBS/TNT has some lousy HD programming that's for sure. I wonder what format those sparkling channels are sending to the provider. Maybe MPEG 2 vs MPEG 4 has something to do with it? |
|
KenAF
join:2006-01-23
Arlington, VA
2 edits | said by Clearpix :PQ also has a lot to do with whether the content is HD or upconverted. TBS/TNT has some lousy HD programming that's for sure. I wonder what format those sparkling channels are sending to the provider. Maybe MPEG 2 vs MPEG 4 has something to do with it? The overwhelming number of channels are originally delivered in MPEG-2. The exceptions include the HBO channels besides HBO-E and HBO-W, the Cinemax channels besides Cinemax-E and Cinemax-W, and the Starz channels besides Starz-E and Starz-W. I think FOX may also use MPEG-4 on a few of their cable news channels, but I can't recall for certain. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
1 edit | Not all of the STB's do MPEG-4. I don't think it matters anyway, heard they aren't sending MPEG-4. |
|
keyboards
join:2001-02-14
Doylestown, PA
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| said by jmn1207 :Not all of the STB's do MPEG-4. I don't think it matters anyway, heard they aren't sending MPEG-4. They are referring to the source material. Verizon has to trans-code from MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 for those channels.
--
REMEMBER: Stupidity should be painful !! |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| said by keyboards :said by jmn1207 :Not all of the STB's do MPEG-4. I don't think it matters anyway, heard they aren't sending MPEG-4. They are referring to the source material. Verizon has to trans-code from MPEG-4 to MPEG-2 for those channels. Ah, gotcha. Hopefully they will send MPEG-4 to our STB's in the near future rather than transcode all signals to MPEG-2. |
|
afiggatt
join:2007-07-12
Sterling, VA
| said by jmn1207 :Ah, gotcha. Hopefully they will send MPEG-4 to our STB's in the near future rather than transcode all signals to MPEG-2. Only the recently introduced 7xxx series Motorola STB/DVR can handle MPEG-4. Verizon is still reportedly handing out 6416s to new customers in many markets. Verizon can't switch to MPEG-4 until they replace all or most of the 6416 DVRs and HD STBs. Also, MPEG-4 won't work for TV QAM tuners with cable cards. It will be years before Verizon might roll out MPEG-4 for the HD channels. |
|
max4224
@verizon.net | reply to darcilicious
Me too. Many of the live concerts are really impressive. |
|
jaw2012
join:2008-08-01
019405
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207 :I agree that the Smithsonian HD channel looks good. When I switch to that channel, it's a bit mesmerizing and difficult to change the channel. Exactly....it's like Smithsonian HD is ALMOST 3D.
yup, it is mesmerizing ; ) |
|
shark2k
join:2008-06-01
West Orange, NJ
| reply to theQuickness
said by theQuickness :Ya thats basically right. It depends on the mpeg2 compression rate at which the station chooses to distribute the program to the cable providers. As well as the the type of camera that's used to film the program, ie: there wasn't HD cameras when Seinfeld was being produced. So the show will not look as good as Spiderman III. Premium channels like HBO and movie channels are filmed on high quality cameras. Then lastly it depends on the cable provider's(tw,vz,cox)compression rate at which they redistribute the broadcast to home viewers. Which is why Vz is the best. Cable mso's have to compress the program at a higher rate because they don't have enough bandwidth on their network. (see channel bonding docsis 3.0) While HD cameras might not have been around when Seinfeld was created that doesn't matter. Seinfeld was shot on Film and Film will always beat digital for the fact that Film is always going to be able to capture the highest resolution possible. Think about it like this. Sleeping Beauty wasn't shot in "HD" as we would call it now. Yet the Blu-ray was just released which is 1080p. Also, they scanned the film in at a 4K resolution (which means they are ready when the next gen resolution comes out). Seinfeld can look just as good as any film/movie/show shot in "HD" because it has a higher resolution and they wouldn't have to upscale it.
Another example is Star Trek: The Original Series. That was released on HD-DVD and was presented in 1080p. The reason was because it was shot on Film and they were able to scan it in (to make it digital) at a higher resolution. Also, think of this. Stuff that is shot digitally, unless they shoot it at a higher resolution than 1920x1080, when the next generation "HD" comes out, those films/movies/shows will be screwed when it comes to being released because they will have to be upscaled, which would suck.
-Shark2k |
|
