# HD Cable Customers Unhappy About Poor Picture Quality



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Anyone see this AP article? Kinda disheartening...

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

Had not seen that article, does not surprise me... I have been complaining about Comcast PQ for a long time. Most everyone else says they have better PQ with cable than satellite. Not me, around here Dish Network has a better picture than Comcast. My Comcast HD, in general, looks only slightly better than Dish Network SD, and then I think the only reason is I had the picture stretched to fill the screen with Dish Network.


----------



## fibreKid (Apr 20, 2006)

PQ quality really does differ region to region and area to area. I was at a social function where a person had HD cable from Comcast and the pq is terrible. Worse than a stdfef DVD by a long shot. I also have HD cable from Comcast and I can't complain too much. The PQ knocks the socks off std def cable and scaled std DVD playback. I'm using a Denon 5900 for the DVD player but I have only a 46" DLP TV so some of the stuff that might be viewable on a larger screen just don't show up on a 46" display. 
We probably live less than 20 miles apart.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I think that the thread should be renamed to change HD Cable to Comcast. The implication is that all cable has the same issues. In fact, many are notably better than competing satellite signals. It is easily the case here that Cox is better than either DirecTV or Dish Network. There is as much difference in cable operators as in any other product, and lumping them all together is misleading.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Very true, My HD Cable with Shaw is far better than sat. by a long shot and cable is not affected nearly as much by weather conditions or other interference.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

I found that some channels on Bell ExpressVu satellite were better than the same on Rogers cable and vise versa.

I liked this


> For example, Discovery’s bit rate was 14.16 megabits per second on Verizon’s FiOS system but only 10.43 Mbps on Comcast; A&E HD was 18.66 Mbps on FiOS compared to 14.48 Mbps on Comcast. The FiOS system didn’t offer Sci Fi HD, which Fowler’s testing showed at 12.59 Mbps on Comcast.


I think they need to cut some of the channels that don't get watched and improve their overall system.

What I find bad is that TMN (The Movie Network) in HD on Rogers only broadcasts in DD 5.1 a fraction of the time. I dropped TMN this month because it just wasn't worth it. I typically rent the movies on Bluray or DVD 6 months before they air on TMN anyway.


----------



## dtvguy (Mar 3, 2009)

I have worked for DirecTv for 3 years now. all personal opions aside how many true hd channels do you guys get. im not talking about the on demand feature where you go back and pull up hd movies at a later time. Im talking about everyday channel surfing. Cox Cable about 35. That 1080 broadcast shows and movies. Dish network 70. DTV 130 including locals, which in most areas arent being offered by dish anymore, and cable companies are ever cutting their budgets. Even in the case of eagle west cable company an az based cable distributor, they were raided by the fbi for reselling directv signals. think clearly before you believe what you read. :yay:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The truth is alot of the HD channels you get from Satellite are not true HD channels they are just upconverted SD 16:9 material leading you to believe that your getting more for your money.


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

Even that happens with cable (comcast). TBS hd constantly plays upconverted material. The earlier Seinfeld episodes are not that great looking. The later ones look like they are either shot better or actually have a resolution that is good enough for high def. I think the problem with comcast is them trying to feed so many channels through at once. All their material is sub par. Look at the fox soccer channel sometimes. It looks worse than youtube videos.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

THat would be true for all of the HD channels. If it's not shot in HD then it's scaled to 720p or 1080i...then the cable or satellite company compresses it to fit their bandwidth limitations. Most of the prime-time shows are HD right now. Give it a few more years and all of the day-time shows will convert over. I don't really care if As The World Turns is in high def though. 

What bugs me though is when the cable and sat compaies claim they have the most HD channels when most of it filler. Two or three time shifting networks, a few channels that play on a 3 hour loop and a HD demo channel don't really cut it. :rubeyes:

The real crime is that, where I live, Rogers or Bell charge a premium for HD. First you need to pay extra for a HD Box or PVR, then for a basic HD package that only has a half dozen decent channels and if you want the good ones you'll have to pay. You have no choice to include their SD channels so you're looking at at least $70 for a basic HD package. Over $800 a year for cable? Over the air HD is nonexistant where I am so I'm stuck...and I just can't bear to watch most stuff in SD (my eyes!).:rubeyes:


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I have many clients that use either sat or cable or both. I hear a lot more complaints about HD quality on sat than on cable.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

On eof the big things with a dish is that during bad thuderstorms you sometimes loose the signal. Also depending on where the dish is snow can accumulate on it and hamper it's performance. I had to clean off my dish once. Satellite is a godsend to people in remote areas though.


----------



## dtvguy (Mar 3, 2009)

dish placement has alot to do with it tho. If your installer does their job right most of the time you can just sweep overpiled snow off, and if securely mounted thunderstorms should not give you an issue with the latest form of the slimline ka/ku satellite dish for hd reception.


----------



## wbassett (Feb 8, 2007)

I see a slight improvement in picture quality, but honestly most of what Time Warner calls 'HD' is merely content at 16:9 so it fills my screen. Occasionally I see something that truly stands out, but still nothing on cable compares to full 1080p content on Bluray (or even HD DVD).

My 'guess' is they get away with it because of the uneducated masses. I meet so many people that think just because something is 16:9, or wide screen, that means it's high definition. It's like those people that don't understand that just because they have an HDTV it doesn't mean what they are seeing is High Definition. I listened to someone once argue and was confused about DVD vs Bluray. They kept saying they already had HD because their TV was an HDTV so they didn't need a Bluray player to play HD content. To people like that... all the cable company has to do is make the image fill the screen and over saturate the colors and brightness and those people then think they are watching HD!


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

I noticed when I first got HD cable 4 years ago that the quality was better. The colours were much more vivid and I couldn't see as many compression artifacts. Of course back then there were only about 15 HD channels in my area and now there is more than double that.

Mentioning "people like that", most of them have poorly calibrated displays also. Most just have the factory default. It's nice to look like a wizard sometimes by altering a few things for them.


----------

