Why does Discovery HD look so much better than other HD channels?

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Are you on Satellite or Cable?

Satellite degrades their HD feeds on a lot of channels. Discovery might not be one of them.
Do a google search for "hd lite" and you'll find out just how much resolution you lose on the satellites. Dish and Direct.

Cable doesn't degrade at all, that I know of.

They compress. Best bet is over the air.

:thumbsup:

I could see a difference in MNF last season with OTA and Time Warner cable. OTA def looked better, but it was less reliable because I was in a bad location for signal.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Are you on Satellite or Cable?

Satellite degrades their HD feeds on a lot of channels. Discovery might not be one of them.
Do a google search for "hd lite" and you'll find out just how much resolution you lose on the satellites. Dish and Direct.

Cable doesn't degrade at all, that I know of.

They compress. Best bet is over the air.

Over the air Discovery HD is the best.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Discovery HD is probably using a true 720p source for their HD broadcast whereas the other HD channels are probably using a 480i or 480p source and upconverting it.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Over the air Discovery HD is the best.

Did I miss something? AFAIK they don't have towers all over the US.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Discovery HD is probably using a true 720p source for their HD broadcast whereas the other HD channels are probably using a 480i or 480p source and upconverting it.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

It's very easy to tell the difference between the two. Very easy.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

Huh? How is this shens? There's a pretty large difference between 1080i and 720p.

Remember, most of the LCD TVs out there only have 720p pixel resolution, so watching 1080i and 720p will look about the same. But on my TV which supports the resolution, the difference is very easy to see. Not hard at all.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Discovery HD is probably using a true 720p source for their HD broadcast whereas the other HD channels are probably using a 480i or 480p source and upconverting it.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

It's very easy to tell the difference between the two. Very easy.

Well, yes technically it is easy to tell the difference between the two because most HD TVs will tell you what the input resolution is.

However, if you had to look at two quality signals 720p and 1080i side by side, you would be hard pressed to notice a difference that couldn't be attributed to scaling or interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts from the television's scaler.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: QED

Well, yes technically it is easy to tell the difference between the two because most HD TVs will tell you what the input resolution is.

However, if you had to look at two quality signals 720p and 1080i side by side, you would be hard pressed to notice a difference that couldn't be attributed to scaling or interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts from the television's scaler.

That's like saying that you can't tell the difference between 800x600 or 1024x768 on your monitor.

The difference is very easy to see. It's not even up for debate. If you can't tell the difference, then you either have very bad eyes or you just have a cheap TV.

This conversation reminds me of the time a guy tried telling me that the human eye can't see above 60 hz refresh rate on a monitor. Complete idiocy.

Come on, try to tell the forum that 720p and 1080i are indistinguishable, and get ready to be owned by everyone with working eyes and a good TV set.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Discovery HD is probably using a true 720p source for their HD broadcast whereas the other HD channels are probably using a 480i or 480p source and upconverting it.

Garbage in, garbage out.

QFT

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

Huh? How is this shens? There's a pretty large difference between 1080i and 720p.

Remember, most of the LCD TVs out there only have 720p pixel resolution, so watching 1080i and 720p will look about the same. But on my TV which supports the resolution, the difference is very easy to see. Not hard at all.

Don't know what you are seeing, but it's pretty well-recognized that 720p looks better, if at least not as good as 1080i.
Get a good signal of both and there's no way you'll say 1080i looks better.

Particularly in sports, 720p is better.

ESPN puts it like this: 'Progressive scan technology produces better images for the fast moving orientation of sports television. Simply put, with 104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey, the line-by-line basis of progressive scan technology better captures the inherent fast action of sports. For ESPN, progressive scan technology makes perfect sense.'

Link

 

[aswedc]

Ah people who don't know WTF they're talking about...

PBS has HD. Yes, HD, not ED.

Neither 720p or 1080i is better. Each has strengths and weaknesses. I quote Wikipedia:

While 720p presents a complete 720 line frame to the viewer between 24 to 60 times each second (depending on the format), 1080i presents the picture as 50 or 60 partial 540 line "fields" (24 complete 1080-line fields, or "24p" is included in the ATSC standard though) which the human eye or a deinterlacer built into the display device must visually and temporally combine to build a 1080 line picture. The main tradeoff between the two is that 1080i may show more detail than 720p for a stationary shot of a subject at the expense of introducing interlace artifacts from a motion of the camera (such as a pan) or motion of the subject. 720p is used by ABC and ESPN because the smoother image is desirable for fast-action sports telecasts. Fox Broadcasting Company uses the tagline "the nation's finest high-definition standard" in advertising its 720p programming.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

Huh? How is this shens? There's a pretty large difference between 1080i and 720p.

Remember, most of the LCD TVs out there only have 720p pixel resolution, so watching 1080i and 720p will look about the same. But on my TV which supports the resolution, the difference is very easy to see. Not hard at all.

Don't know what you are seeing, but it's pretty well-recognized that 720p looks better, if at least not as good as 1080i.
Get a good signal of both and there's no way you'll say 1080i looks better.

Particularly in sports, 720p is better.

ESPN puts it like this: 'Progressive scan technology produces better images for the fast moving orientation of sports television. Simply put, with 104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey, the line-by-line basis of progressive scan technology better captures the inherent fast action of sports. For ESPN, progressive scan technology makes perfect sense.'

Link

This isn't entirely true for all users. For instance, I have a CRT HDTV, which is interlaced. Regardless of whether I watch 720p or 1080i programs, my TV displays them in an interlaced format.

On the flip side, many TVs are natively 720p, and display video at 720p regardless of whether the program is 720p or 1080i. The circuitry inside the TV translates between the broadcast format and what the screen can display.

So people like me will never see the increased framerate associated with 720p, and most people with newer LCD HDTVs will never see the increased resolution associated with 1080i.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: QED
Well, yes technically it is easy to tell the difference between the two because most HD TVs will tell you what the input resolution is.

However, if you had to look at two quality signals 720p and 1080i side by side, you would be hard pressed to notice a difference that couldn't be attributed to scaling or interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts from the television's scaler.

QED, man do we ever butt heads on video...only to speak the same language.

you are correct. I would not be hard pressed to see a difference, but that is totally dependant on the display/scaler and the source. As far as side by side? That would depend on the display. Hell man, you know what I'm talking about.

I would be very hard pressed (as I'm sure you know) to determine if it's the scaler/source, etc or not. You know it all has to do with that - source, display, scaler.

But I'm sure that you (like I) can view a disaplay and see what it is running.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QED

Well, yes technically it is easy to tell the difference between the two because most HD TVs will tell you what the input resolution is.

However, if you had to look at two quality signals 720p and 1080i side by side, you would be hard pressed to notice a difference that couldn't be attributed to scaling or interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts from the television's scaler.

That's like saying that you can't tell the difference between 800x600 or 1024x768 on your monitor.

The difference is very easy to see. It's not even up for debate. If you can't tell the difference, then you either have very bad eyes or you just have a cheap TV.

This conversation reminds me of the time a guy tried telling me that the human eye can't see above 60 hz refresh rate on a monitor. Complete idiocy.

Come on, try to tell the forum that 720p and 1080i are indistinguishable, and get ready to be owned by everyone with working eyes and a good TV set.

Sorry, but you are wrong. 720p will show you all the resolution your eyes can see.

But there?s a more important issue ? can you really see the difference in resolution between 1080i and 1080p? Tests of visual acuity to determine the resolution required of a television transmission system by the BBC?s J.O. Drewery and R. Salmon determined that at 9 feet, a 50 inch screen at 720p?s resolution will give you all the resolution you can see!

Link

Motion is different issue. If you want to see motion clearly, then live action 720p is what looks best, compared to 1080i. Here?s why: the information content of 720p is about the same as 1080i, though what it lacks in spatial resolution, it makes up for in temporal resolution (because the picture is at 1/60th of a second, not 1/30th x 2.) On 1080i, this would show as flickered or jagged edges on bright horizontal objects (like in the background of a camera pan.)

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QED

Well, yes technically it is easy to tell the difference between the two because most HD TVs will tell you what the input resolution is.

However, if you had to look at two quality signals 720p and 1080i side by side, you would be hard pressed to notice a difference that couldn't be attributed to scaling or interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts from the television's scaler.

That's like saying that you can't tell the difference between 800x600 or 1024x768 on your monitor.

The difference is very easy to see. It's not even up for debate. If you can't tell the difference, then you either have very bad eyes or you just have a cheap TV.

This conversation reminds me of the time a guy tried telling me that the human eye can't see above 60 hz refresh rate on a monitor. Complete idiocy.

Come on, try to tell the forum that 720p and 1080i are indistinguishable, and get ready to be owned by everyone with working eyes and a good TV set.

Uhhh... I never said 720p and 1080i are indistinguishable... merely that they aren't very easy to see. There's no need to make straw man arguments...

The 800x600 vs. 1024x768 point you make is a good one except that the easiest way to tell the difference between the two resolutions with a PC for most people is just simply noticing the relative size of the task bar or icons or other things that have fixed pixel dimensions-- something that you can't do with a TV which scales the input resolution anyways to fit the TV panel's native resolution.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Some stations go beyond filming in 720p and use 1080i. I can easily tell the difference on my TV, which will display 1080i.

Shens. Unless you have really crappy 720p stations.

Huh? How is this shens? There's a pretty large difference between 1080i and 720p.

Remember, most of the LCD TVs out there only have 720p pixel resolution, so watching 1080i and 720p will look about the same. But on my TV which supports the resolution, the difference is very easy to see. Not hard at all.

Don't know what you are seeing, but it's pretty well-recognized that 720p looks better, if at least not as good as 1080i.
Get a good signal of both and there's no way you'll say 1080i looks better.

Particularly in sports, 720p is better.

ESPN puts it like this: 'Progressive scan technology produces better images for the fast moving orientation of sports television. Simply put, with 104 mph fastballs in baseball and 120 mph shots on goal in hockey, the line-by-line basis of progressive scan technology better captures the inherent fast action of sports. For ESPN, progressive scan technology makes perfect sense.'

Link

This isn't entirely true for all users. For instance, I have a CRT HDTV, which is interlaced. Regardless of whether I watch 720p or 1080i programs, my TV displays them in an interlaced format.

On the flip side, many TVs are natively 720p, and display video at 720p regardless of whether the program is 720p or 1080i. The circuitry inside the TV translates between the broadcast format and what the screen can display.

So people like me will never see the increased framerate associated with 720p, and most people with newer LCD HDTVs will never see the increased resolution associated with 1080i.

Okay, so on a sub-standard HDTV, like a CRT that doesn't do progressive, you might see a difference.
But on a big screen HDTV, there is none, and in fact 720p is better for sports and fast moving stuff.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb


Sorry, but you are wrong. 720p will show you all the resolution your eyes can see.

What an uneducated, assinine claim.

This is completely false, and any videophile will tell you that you're completely incorrect. Even QED will point out that this is false.

If 720p will show you all the resolution that your eyes can see, then there'd be no point of 1080i, and certainly no point of 1080p. Yet people who have watched the different formats can tell you that there is a noticeable difference.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb


Sorry, but you are wrong. 720p will show you all the resolution your eyes can see.

What an uneducated, assinine claim.

This is completely false, and any videophile will tell you that you're completely incorrect. Even QED will point out that this is false.

If 720p will show you all the resolution that your eyes can see, then there'd be no point of 1080i, and certainly no point of 1080p. Yet people who have watched the different formats can tell you that there is a noticeable difference.

So I guess the guy I quoted doesn't know what he's talking about?
Google 720p vs 1080i and see what you come up with.

edit: Love the way my claim is "uneducated an assinine" when I provided links with quotes from people who know far more than anyone here does about this topic.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Okay, so on a sub-standard HDTV, like a CRT that doesn't do progressive, you might see a difference.
But on a big screen HDTV, there is none, and in fact 720p is better for sports and fast moving stuff.

I'd like to request that you stop posting about a subject that you obviously know nothing about.

Your posts reek of a lack of education on the subject, and your level of understanding isn't of the required level to participate in this thread.

I do not have a sub-standard HDTV. Anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you that CRTs are not substandard, and in fact deliver a better picture.

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: QED
Well, yes technically it is easy to tell the difference between the two because most HD TVs will tell you what the input resolution is.

However, if you had to look at two quality signals 720p and 1080i side by side, you would be hard pressed to notice a difference that couldn't be attributed to scaling or interlacing/deinterlacing artifacts from the television's scaler.

QED, man do we ever butt heads on video...only to speak the same language.

you are correct. I would not be hard pressed to see a difference, but that is totally dependant on the display/scaler and the source. As far as side by side? That would depend on the display. Hell man, you know what I'm talking about.

I would be very hard pressed (as I'm sure you know) to determine if it's the scaler/source, etc or not. You know it all has to do with that - source, display, scaler.

But I'm sure that you (like I) can view a disaplay and see what it is running.

Sorry... it's just I get a little riled up when people make blanket statements like "1080i is the best" or "720p is vastly superior to 1080i" when what looks best to me with my source material on my equipment may not be what looks best to you with your source material on your equipment. But I know I'm preaching to the choir here on that one...

And yes, I think the average person can see the difference between 720p and 1080i if they know what to look for (based on what the source material is and what the display's capabilities are)... but I still don't think it's "easy" (otherwise we wouldn't have so many people stumbling into Best Buy looking at the Panasonic ED Plasma showing DiscoveryHD and thinking they were really watching HD).

 

[spidey07]

This thread proves once again for the umpinth milliion time that you will get no useful information regarding audio or video or cars on ATOT.

-edit- QED, you are dead on with your post.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Okay, so on a sub-standard HDTV, like a CRT that doesn't do progressive, you might see a difference.
But on a big screen HDTV, there is none, and in fact 720p is better for sports and fast moving stuff.

I'd like to request that you stop posting about a subject that you obviously know nothing about.

Your posts reek of a lack of education on the subject, and your level of understanding isn't of the required level to participate in this thread.

I do not have a sub-standard HDTV. Anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you that CRTs are not substandard, and in fact deliver a better picture.

Waiting on all the people who have CRT's and LCD's, DLP's, and Plasmas to chime in on how much better the CRT's are.
Remember, there are no 50-60 inch CRT's. LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, etc, is all you got.
So to me, a CRT is irrelevant.
I've seen a few people who claim they are better, but I don't see anyone trying to build really big CRT's because the technology is better. Do you?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Waiting on all the people who have CRT's and LCD's, DLP's, and Plasmas to chime in on how much better the CRT's are.
Remember, there are no 50-60 inch CRT's. LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, etc, is all you got.
So to me, a CRT is irrelevant.
I've seen a few people who claim they are better, but I don't see anyone trying to build really big CRT's because the technology is better. Do you?

LOL.

So why do my guests enter my theater and go on and on and on about "it doesn't look that good in my theater, WTH did you do and how do I get my theater to look like that!"

oh well. It's generally accepted that CRT owns all. But it's like trying to convince somebody that vinyl is far superior to CD. They just haven't been exposed to audio/vido done correctly.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Okay, so on a sub-standard HDTV, like a CRT that doesn't do progressive, you might see a difference.
But on a big screen HDTV, there is none, and in fact 720p is better for sports and fast moving stuff.

I'd like to request that you stop posting about a subject that you obviously know nothing about.

Your posts reek of a lack of education on the subject, and your level of understanding isn't of the required level to participate in this thread.

I do not have a sub-standard HDTV. Anyone who knows anything about the subject will tell you that CRTs are not substandard, and in fact deliver a better picture.

Waiting on all the people who have CRT's and LCD's, DLP's, and Plasmas to chime in on how much better the CRT's are.
Remember, there are no 50-60 inch CRT's. LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, etc, is all you got.
So to me, a CRT is irrelevant.
I've seen a few people who claim they are better, but I don't see anyone trying to build really big CRT's because the technology is better. Do you?

I have a 57" Sony RP CRT and the black levels are considerably better the my Panasonic Ae700 on a 129" screen. And CRT projectors by far outperform anything else currently available to most (those that can't afford CRT projectors).

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Remember, there are no 50-60 inch CRT's. LCD, Plasma, DLP, LCOS, etc, is all you got.
So to me, a CRT is irrelevant.
I've seen a few people who claim they are better, but I don't see anyone trying to build really big CRT's because the technology is better. Do you?

There are a number of factors which prevents large CRTs from being feasible. For one, building a vacuum tube that large is a feat in inself. Secondly, the TV would be extremely large, taking up a lot of real estate in one's living room. And another thing would be the shipping costs. Imagine the difference in cost between transporting a light, thin LCD and a large, heavy CRT.

But picture quality is not one of the drawbacks.


Personally, I didn't want a huge TV because of cost and the fact that it was going in my bedroom. So I got a 30" Sony KD30XS955. It has the same Sony ultra-fine pitch tube found in the XBR sets, and can actually resolve 1440 of the 1920 lines of resolution from the HD signal.

The Sony XBR CRT sets have become the benchmarks that all other HDTVs are compared to.

A few of my friends who have LCD HDTVs have commented on the picture quality and wanted me to troubleshoot their setup, since their resolution wasn't as crisp.