Cable gets its stuff from the sats anyway, except for locals which they get off the air (and make it look lots worse in the process) just as I could. I get outages all the time on cable when there are storms in the area.
I don't know if the cable get a less compressed signal, but I don't think so as there is a great variety of quality among the various HD channels which I doubt comes from their meddling -- I would be interested to know which service(s) they get their their signals from. DTV and Dish probably take the same stuff off whatever sat feeds, bundle it up (and compress it a lot) and send it up to their sats for distribution to their users. I know they have been launching new sats the last coupla years to get more bandwidth, but with all the new HD coming it will probably still be strained enough to where they have to really compress it. I think the main factor on which TV to get is if you plan on HD DVDs a lot as they will have the best pic of all sources -- cable, OTA, and sat will all be compressed to one degree or another, and not take full advantage of what the TV can do. Kinda like having a really good computer monitor with an old video card. --R b_gallagher wrote: > Can't pick a bone with your statements ..... somewhat what I was > referring to blurs and you brought up another points which will cause > it. Cable will show the best transmission of a image. Sat has to go > through the thunder storms and like and image quality will suffer ..... > > Bill > 1981 300 TD > > Rich Thomas wrote: > >> All those details are somewhat meaningless if the station or cable >> provider or sat is choking the bandwidth of the broadcast. I have >> noticed this particularly on some fights on HBO or SHO HD, in which the >> picture pixelates like crazy when the fighters are punching fast or >> moving quickly. The compression algorithms and further trimming on the >> broadcast signal contribute to this (whether in the truck or on the >> uplink or downlink or cable), and no TV will do any better because >> garbage in = garbage out. Probably same with car races. >> >> I think this will become more of a problem with the transition to full >> digital as local stations have 2 or 3 subchannels to which they can >> allocate bandwidth, and the primary HD signal will suffer for it. And >> with more "HD" channels on cable or sat, they have to squeeze all that >> in somehow so that means less detail transmitted. On most content that >> might not matter much, as the compression does well with stuff that >> doesn't have a lot of fast motion, but sports and car races and and >> action movies and such... I noticed some wicked pixelation on a golf >> match I watched a few minutes of a couple years ago, when the ball took >> off the screen had all kinds of white patches on it! >> >> If I recall, full HD 1920x1080p is 19.2Mbps, I doubt if anyone is >> transmitting that here in US (maybe in Japan?), maybe 1080i is all they >> do, if even that. HD DVDs probably do that though, so that is a useful >> consideration in which TV one selects. >> >> Plus I thought film was limited by grain size, which is considerably >> higher rez than HD ever will be? >> >> --R >> >> b_gallagher wrote: >> >> >>> The best resolution right now is the 1080i. It's has a resolution of >>> 1920 by 1080 which is just under the resolution of 16 mm film( 1600 by >>> 1156 ). You can adjust your monitor on your computer to see the >>> difference. Picture quality will go down i.e. 720i is 1920 by 720. The >>> old picture quality on TV for the last 55 years has been NTSC which has >>> a resolution of 680 by 480. >>> The number of information displayed on a screen is 1920 times >>> 1080 equals 2,073,600. 1920 times 720 equals 1,382,400 and the old >>> picture we has seen for 55 years on TV is 640 times 480 equal 307,200. >>> Sport Jocks will as if the ball went foul and show the image on NTSC >>> which does not really show the world that we sell with our eyes. It was >>> a joke and people not knowing will argue about the foul ball forever. To >>> summary this issue, the higher the resolution, the better the quality, >>> you can see line cracks on people's skin, and the image is on the low >>> level of showing the real world as seen through our eyes. >>> If you want the best color display, Sony or/and Panasonic has the >>> best. If you select RCA and make a comment about the color of the person >>> clothing, you are really not seeing what your eye see. There is a big >>> shift in the color Hues. >>> If you like to watch the soaps, theater, talk show on TV, go with >>> the plasma. Action viewing, sports, movies, and the like require the >>> CRT. CRT will keep up with the movement of action as the plasma does not >>> and shows blurs. >>> 720 P and the like, in my point of view, will be slow to come on >>> line. The media has resisted for over 50 years, and another change will >>> cost more. >>> One finally point, not all TV stations have HD cameras. If they buy >>> a cheap one, your see a cheap picture in HD. Colors will be poor, >>> resolution like 720 and the like. All the major league football and >>> baseball have the best equipment, therefore, the best picture will be >>> displayed on your HD 1080i.... >>> >>> Check the like out for further info: >>> Bill >>> 1981 300 TD >>> >>> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6361600-1.html >>> >>> Kaleb C. Striplin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I went and looked at some TV's. Went to dead sams, worst buy, and wally >>>> world. I have a few people(not working at the store, people I know) >>>> tell me that DLP is the best. What do you all think? They seem to have >>>> bigger screen and cheaper. AT walmart, they had some of the 1080P and >>>> 720P LCD and plasmas. It seemed like maybe the LCD had a better >>>> picture. Could have been how it was adjusted at the store too. I could >>>> not really tell for sure if the 1080P was that much better than the >>>> 720P. Is it really paying a big different for the higher resolution? >>>> Also, Walmart had a couple of 50" DLP models, one was an RCA for $9xx, >>>> the other I think was a phillips for $8xx. Seems like a good deal to >>>> me. The picture on the RCA was better than the phillips, but again, >>>> they might not have been adjusted very good. The RCA didnt seem to have >>>> as good of a picture as the LCD's and plasmas. It was a 720P. I have >>>> also heard the DLP is better in the fact that when it comes time to >>>> replace the bulb, its easier and cheaper to do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________ >>> http://www.okiebenz.com >>> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ >>> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >>> http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________ >> http://www.okiebenz.com >> For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ >> For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: >> http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com >> >> >> > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
