picture quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter new-oakviller
  • Start date Start date
yea from what i hear bell vs starchoice HD PQ is a crapshoot too. only minor differences. but im sure both signals are compressed to the max
 
The 1000 HD channels are virtual channels of the 800s. The same video and audio are used for both versions of the channels. If you're seeing a difference, it's mind over matter.
 
Hi, I just had installed an ExpressVu satellite and I have a PVR (9241). The system is setup at 1080i. I have a Sony FullHD tv (Bravia). I find that the image quality is not that good. One week ago, I had Illico and I strongly believe the image quality was better (clearer, sharper, less blury). I have HDMI cable and I also tried the setup at 720p and it didn't make much difference. I would like to stay with Bell, but I'm disappointed so far. I still have a few days to cancel Bell. What should I do? Any suggestions on how to improve my tv experience? Thanks!
 
DrewSat is correct on this one, the channels are just re-mapped to the 1000's, it has no affect on PQ or it shouldn't anyway....... Hey DrewSat, any chance you can inform your contacts over at BEV that we are all wanting 1080i back again.

Paul
 
I personally find the PQ of the Canadiens games on RDS to be superior to TSN coverage and far superior to CBC. Only complaint with the RDS coverage is that the audio is not 5.1.
 
I am a bell customer but recently decided to give shaw a try. I wanted to save some money with their bundle deals. I have the 9242 and was given a 3416 from shaw. While some of shaw's HD channels are quite good many of the network channels seem much worse than bell. It's the macroblocking that really shocked me. As far as SD goes the bell channels seem much better.

Besides the PQ the 9242 receiver is way better than the 3416.

In the end I went back to bell. After they gave me a 20% discount I don't think shaw is any cheaper.

I was told by the shaw tech I have a good strong signal. There may be other reasons the shaw PQ is worse for me than bell but in the end all I can do is go by my eyes.
 
Ok I've been pretty vocal on this thread when it comes to the BAD PQ from BEV.... but I must say that lately there has been a slight improvement on the PQ, at least in some HD channels. One in particular is "House", it use to have a very soft (PQ)... yesterdays show was considerably better, sharper and very little motion blur.

Paul
 
Because Bell has decided that for their business model, having the most channels is more important than having the highest A/V quality. We are all free to explore other options if we are unsatisfied.
 
I am watching Flashforward as I type this...........looks like CTV has picked up this show for the first time this week......so ABC is also showing the CTV version..............most scenes are VHS quality...........ie not even rising to dvd quality.

Stunning Picture Quality BELL!!
 
I'll second jump27 thoughts. Some Bell channels look good to even very good. Others like the American East & West HD networks look soft. Is there a reason why the American HD's especially the East look worse than the other channels in general? Are they receiving less bandwith? Boston CBS HD & ABC HD use to two of the best looking channels two years ago.
 
The superstations are on the 91 degree satellite. They are not changing to 8PSK on the 91 satellite, only the 82 satellite, which is primarlily the HD channels.
 
wow, i wanted to switch from videotron to bell, but after reading this thread, im more skeptical, has anyone seen their hd channels side by side, videotron's hd looks pretty good. can anyone tell how much worse bell's is?
 
I have noticed a few times the past 2 weeks that the picture quality looked poor. Never noticed it that bad before.
 
Wow.....I didn't know that in order to judge picture quality, you have to have been a long time member of this forum!!!!!!
 
Watched the AMA Music Awards on ABCHE last night and it was, by far, the worst presentation I have ever seen on Bell HD! The macroblocking during the light shows in songs was horrendous!!! Sad that they have crammed so much at the expense of such poor quality.
 
I just joined Bell TV in September. For a month I had both Bell and Starchoice/Shaw Direct. I love the show Supernatural. With Starchoice, I had to subscribe to WGN in order to see this show in HD. Bell has SunTV in HD. So it's less expensive for me and one thing I've noticed was how fantastic the picture quality is on Sun compared to WGN. I have the 9241 PVR. However, just this week I purchased a brand new 9242 PVR and there sure is a big difference in quality. The HDMI is so poor on the 9242 that I'm using component. Yet with the 9241, the HDMI feed looks fantastic. It's not a big deal as you can't tell between component or HDMI usually. I sure can tell with the 9242. Perhaps this is why people keep saying Bell looks worse than Shaw Direct. I couldn't figure it out until I bought the 9242. It's something to keep in mind.
 
I think you just found out what happens when you buy the most HD not the best HD. Get out or ask for a price reduction to correspond with you picture quality.
 
dsslearn, I do agree with you... it could use some improvement. But there is a lot of things that effect pc and not all of them are Bell's doing. Last night I watched the hockey game, Criminal Minds & Bones and they all looked great.
 
kittys, sadly I've come to the conclusion that it is not Bell per se who cares about the number of channels but rather it is their customer base who do. Right now there is a lively discussion (purely speculative) in another thread about four new spots that have suddenly appeared on the satellite. Everyone is trying to predict which new channels are about to be added. Not one person has pointed out that new channels will inevitably have to share bandwidth and bit rate with the existing services and that this may have some impact on overall picture quality. Not one person has voiced the opinion that maybe Bell should not be adding any more channels. So don't blame Bell solely for bad PQ. To some extent they are forced to keep adding and adding by their subscribers.
 
Back
Top