picture quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter new-oakviller
  • Start date Start date
Sorry...new baby, no sleep. Meant 720p.

I also thought BEV was deploying a new system (or component)? something that was supposed to kick up picture quality...better compression or something? MPEG4?

I am not that technical so maybe way off base. Was looking at selecting btwn the two and was told Bell has a new system....i just assumed they meant soemthing enabling better compression.
 
Same boat here my friend got Bell yesterday in my condo (shared dish off the roof) and it is utter utter crap, Rogers was not wonderful but this is just shocking I am really p**sed that I moved across. Tempted by big money savings but this is not worth it, I will be trying to get back to Rogers next week if I cant make it look better.
 
regarding the 720p/1080i issue, I tested setting my 9242 to each of these and comparing. It looks to me like setting the 9242 to 720p leads to less blur and compression/conversion artifacts. Since Bell broadcasts everything in 720p, I figure my recent model Sony can do a better job upconverting from 720p to 1080 than the 9242 can.

Are you guys saying that setting the 9242 to 1080i and letting the TV just do the 1080i to 1080p de-interlacing is the better way to go ?
 
Not sure how the Centre Ice feed of the Oilers/Flames game looks tonight, but on Sportnet West HD (849) the game looks soft and is full of macroblocking on any movement. It looks terrible. In fact the game looks so bad it's almost better to watch it on SD
 
What does that even mean? You either have HD or you don't.

And does the BC court have any jurisdiction in, say, Ontario? If not, what sort of binding effect would it have elsewhere?
 
Well Looks like i answered my own question. Around PPV showtime , they shut down another PPV movie channel to free up some bandwidth. For once i can actually give Bell TV thumbs up! Picture Quality for the TNA Wrestling PPV i ordered was simply outstanding. I would be thrilled if all the channels could look like the ppv did last night. No Macro blocking, No Blur. Just crisp Clear HD. So i guess money well spent.:cool: considering it was also a great ppv.
 
Because the signal that leaves Rogers' head end via cable to your home has not been format-changed by Rogers and often has not been further compressed (depending on the channel - see link provided), while BTV changes the format to 720P and compresses all channels (3 channels per each of BTV's satellite transpoders with each transpoder having about 30 Mbps capability)

You are perhaps confusing the satellite that's used by BTV to get the signal to you, with the Satellite that's used by the Affiliates/Networks to get the signal to the service provider - totally different and higher bitrate/quality in the latter case. Please realize also that some of the signals get to the service provider by fibre and some signals get to Rogers OTA...

What we're talking about is the signal that actually gets to your home and they are quite different between Rogers and BTV, with BTV being 720P/compressed and Rogers being original format and often uncompressed or less compressed, depending on the channel.

(When I'm talking about compression here, I'm talking about the compression done by the service provider, not by the affiliate/network before transmission to the service provider or end customer, since all HD has to be compressed to get it to the maximum 19.4 Mbps bitrate allowed OTA). Sometimes the Affiliates/Networks send a higher bitrate to the service provider, then the Service provider can compress down to what they need to use.
 
Perceived picture quality depends a lot on the display. With a 92xx and a 768p 32" TV at 6' Bell HD looks fine. Even most of the SD channels look Ok. However, if I look at Bell HD, close up, on my 1080p computer monitor (connected with component), the defects virtually jump out. The picture looks like garbage on most HD channels. I imagine that anyone with a large 1080p HDTV will experience the same. Opinions on Bell HD will vary with display, channels watched and also the current Bell technical configuration. I've seen some channels go from good, to awful, to OK as Bell had technical issues and implemented technology changes.
 
There is no advantage to 1080i with picture quality...[/QUOTE]isn't even worth discussing the rest.
Before you educate others, make sure you know what you are talking about.

BTW, is this the place you have seen the comparison?

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=439868
 
Bell has announced they'll be converting to MPEG4 signal compression, but a high percentage of Bell receivers are not capable of decoding MPEG4 right now, so the conversion is unlikely to occur for at least another year or two. Whether the switch to MPEG4 will result in better PQ is to be seen - Bell could use the additional transponder capacity to cram more channels per transponder, rather than increase the PQ on existing channels.
 
I am moving to Bell (from Rogers) on Dec 18th. I have a Toshiba rear-projection 65" HDTV (its 10 years old and does 480i, 480p and 1080i only)

With recent comments from people about PQ problems and the fact that BEV does only 720p, how will it affect me or my HD channels? Will the PQ be worst? (I even picked the option to buy the receiver, its the basic HD receiver)

Please help
 
well after 2 days living with it im still unimpressed

no savings is worth this...im actually in shock about how bad it is...like..the idea that some people go and buy new tvs and get bell and think this is what hd should look like...its alarming

i should say that the only thing i like is that NBC (im watching jimmy fallon's poor excuse for a show right now) is in DD 5.1 with bell and it isnt with rogers...

i noticed it last night with leno..my receiver was always showing stereo plus pl2x when i was with rogers... these last two days i am getting dd...i wonder why that is...
 
The stacked Bell TV service should be exactly the same as if you have your own Dish.

Can you describe the problems.?
 
I'm not sure that I would agree (although I can't disagree with the part where you say it is your perception :) ).

First, the 4100 is newer than the 3100. Second, I sincerely doubt there is any noticable difference in the quality of the SD output from any of the receiver models, even going back to the old 3000's (or older) compared to the new ones. It is a digital picture, although I would concede it is possible the analog output components may be infereior, but I'd like to see an actual quality comparison.

As for HD, personally I'm very happy with the PQ of most HD channels displayed on my Sharp Aquos 52" via a 9200 receiver.
 
Yea I've been watching several of my favorite shows OTA as CBC HD and SUN HD can be picked up here. The quality is noticeably better. The only problem is there's no guide data for those channels.

My wish is that more and more stations will broadcast OTA and a machine like TiVo will look after the PVR and guide information. I have no trust that Bell is going to give us better picture. The average person doesn't seem to care about that. They only care that they have 200 HD channels.

If Bell did transmit using MPEG4 someday, would the 9241/9242 machine be adaptable to that?
 
HD channels now use 8PSK modulation. Last time I watched Bell (after the switch) the picture was still very soft.
 
Back
Top