|
|
|
|
|
U-talk Peer-to-Peer Forums :
U-verse TV :
TV Programming :
HD Quality
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Page:
·
·
·
·
·
·
7
·
·
·
| Next Page
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
|
|
mandarin77
Visitor
Posts: 4
Registered: 11-25-2007
Message 61 of 94
Viewed 4,229 times
|
|
|
My appologies, my connection is showing 27.2 Mbps. Much larger than 3.0, but still a far cry away from the Gbps speeds that are needed. Coax has higher available speeds (cable), but they still don't hit the needed mark.
|
|
|
|
11-25-2007 02:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
|
|
scampi
Contributor
Posts: 11
Registered: 09-16-2007
Message 62 of 94
Viewed 4,225 times
|
|
|
I'm throwing in my vote... U-verse HD quality is horrible. The larger the TV screen, the worse it gets. I have a 65 inch HD rear projection set where OTA HD and upconverted DVD look outstanding -- so much depth and detail. When I switch to U-verse HD, I notice significant compression artifacts, espescially in background scenes where it looks worse than VHS. The only reason I'm keeping U-verse HD service is for the programming not offered on their SD stations like HDnet and MusicHD, but even so, I watch these on my 42 inch set where the quality is a little more bearable. However, if it were more than $10/month, I wouldn't have it.
|
|
|
|
11-25-2007 02:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
|
|
JG
Visitor
Posts: 5
Registered: 11-25-2007
Message 63 of 94
Viewed 4,209 times
|
|
|
I don't know why people complain about HD picture quality either. I switched from Comcast to U-verse and have not noticed any detrioriation in HD picture; in fact quality on all digital channles seems to be better than Comcast's. I'd like to see some improvments in receiver box functionality (i.e. wake-up function), in remote control (to scree favorites only) and most importantly the ability to view HD channels on more than one receiver box at the same time (cable does not have such limitation).
|
|
|
|
11-25-2007 04:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
[ Edited ]
|
|
 Koolkid1935
CL - Net Czar
Posts: 2461
Registered: 07-27-2007
Message 64 of 94
Viewed 4,208 times
|
|
mandarin77 wrote:
Here is the problem. You probably have a 10/100 Mbps ethernet switch connecting your Router to your HD TV box (like I do).
I actually have a 24 port gigabit switch running the show, but that still doesn't change the fact that the uplink to the RG is at 100Mb/s and the connection to each STB is only at 100Mb/s, as the RG only supports a 10/100 controller. The switch that I have is a Netgear GS724TS.
Message Edited by Koolkid1935 on 11-25-2007 06:31 PM
Know Thyself
|
|
|
|
11-25-2007 04:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
|
|
mandarin77
Visitor
Posts: 4
Registered: 11-25-2007
Message 65 of 94
Viewed 4,122 times
|
|
|
From scampi: "I have a 65 inch HD rear projection set..." Seriously, just buy a projector... ;-p
|
|
|
|
11-26-2007 07:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
[ Edited ]
|
|
mandarin77
Visitor
Posts: 4
Registered: 11-25-2007
Message 66 of 94
Viewed 4,117 times
|
|
|
I'm reading that 1080i @ 60fps needs 932 Mbps uncompressed. Compression degrades quality. How much compression do you think they need for a 27 Mbps connection? 932 : 27 = 34.5 : 1 And that leaves no room for internet usage. I am going to bet money on "the HD channels look like crap" compared to a legitimate uncompressed HD signal. And you guys pay money for this? Then you think about DVRing one HD channel, while watching another HD channel... that raises compression to what? 70 : 1? Yikes...
Message Edited by mandarin77 on 11-26-2007 10:37 PM
Message Edited by mandarin77 on 11-26-2007 10:39 PM
|
|
|
|
11-26-2007 07:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
|
|
Pip
CL - U-Master
Posts: 8069
Registered: 09-30-2007
Message 67 of 94
Viewed 4,111 times
|
|
|
While I will admit that I don't understand all the numbers and the compression business etc, I have to say, my HD does not look like *crap*, and yes I do pay money for this. Our HD picture is excellent and I will go so far as to say it's even better than what we had with TWC!
mandarin77 wrote: I'm reading that 1080i @ 60fps needs 932 Mbps uncompressed. Compression degrades quality. How much compression do you think they need for a 27 Mbps connection? 932 : 27 = 34.5 : 1 And that leaves no room for internet usage. I am going to bet money on "the HD channels look like crap" compared to a legitimate uncompressed HD signal. And you guys pay money for this? Message Edited by mandarin77 on 11-26-2007 10:37 PM
"I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory"
|
|
|
|
11-26-2007 07:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
[ Edited ]
|
|
sagitarius
Contributor
Posts: 25
Registered: 09-11-2007
Message 68 of 94
Viewed 4,058 times
|
|
While I will admit that I don't understand all the numbers and the compression business etc, I have to say, my HD does not look like *crap*, and yes I do pay money for this. Our HD picture is excellent and I will go so far as to say it's even better than what we had with TWC!
Why is everyone here keep comparing uverse to other services? "HD quality is better than my comcast or TWC or Direct TV" Uverse should stand up by it's own merits right? BTW, my TWC HD image quality is excellent (and not compared to uverse  ) perhaps the problem is your TV or how it was hooked up when you had TWC?
Message Edited by sagitarius on 11-27-2007 08:59 AM
Message Edited by sagitarius on 11-27-2007 09:00 AM
Message Edited by sagitarius on 11-27-2007 09:01 AM
|
|
|
|
11-27-2007 06:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: HD Quality
|
|
Pip
CL - U-Master
Posts: 8069
Registered: 09-30-2007
Message 69 of 94
Viewed 4,035 times
|
|
|
sagitarius, let me see if I have this correct. When you go out to buy a car, you don't compare prices, quality of the car, the service department of the dealership and so on? How about when purchasing insurance? You don't compare on that either? Why on earth should a cable service be any different from any other product we choose to purchase? Perhaps, in my case, the problem was much more than how my TV was hooked up. Comcast came in and changed out the box for an HD box. We had absolutely minimal problems with anything related to our cable service for 2 years. In fact, we had little problems at all when we had Comcast period! Enter TWC. We had more problems than I even want to recall. TWC couldn't figure out the problem and judging from the number of service calls we had, they didn't even WANT to figure out the problem. And, the amazing thing is, we had the exact same set up with them as we did with Comcast. Care to try and explain that? I compared what I was getting from TWC as far as service, programming and the cost for all that, then I compared it to what Uverse had to offer. I have been an AT&T customer with DSL for 6+ years and prior to that always had their phone service throughout all the name changes. I got excellent tech support when I needed it and CS was outstanding. I saw no reason to think that Uverse, since it was from AT&T, would be any different. Uverse was so far ahead of TWC, it wasn't even funny. I find it interesting that you people who don't even have Uverse should make all these comments at all!! You don't have Uverse and therefore, you cannot make any assumptions on the quality of our HD programming or anything else for that matter regarding Uverse. When you become a subscriber to Uverse, THEN, come back and make your comments.
sagitarius wrote: Why is everyone here keep comparing uverse to other services? "HD quality is better than my comcast or TWC or Direct TV" Uverse should stand up by it's own merits right? BTW, my TWC HD image quality is excellent (and not compared to uverse ) perhaps the problem is your TV or how it was hooked up when you had TWC? Message Edited by sagitarius on 11-27-2007 08:59 AMMessage Edited by sagitarius on 11-27-2007 09:00 AMMessage Edited by sagitarius on 11-27-2007 09:01 AM
"I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory"
|
|
|
|
11-27-2007 07:29 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jump to Page:
·
·
·
·
·
·
7
·
·
·
| Next Page
|
|
|
|
|
