I'm glad you like it better, but everything I've read says that's incorrect.
Aemon Send a noteboard - 21/12/2010 07:06:26 PM
Getting a TV channel is (in my simplified explanation ) a three step process.
1) Cable network produces signal.
2) Provider compresses / otherwise messes with signal.
3) You watch signal.
With that in mind, I have two comments.
Comment A:
To my knowledge, there are no networks that currently produce a 1080p signal. It doesn't matter what happens farther down the chain; you can't go higher than the source. So your Uverse service does not provide channels in 1080p, but, rather, in 720p, or 1080i.
Comment B:
The vast majority of people (according to my limited internet research) state that Uverse HD doesn't look as good as standard cable HD. From what I can find, most cable providers allocate about 15-20mbit/s per HD channel, while Uverse allocates 7. Uverse does use a different compression scheme that improves quality per bit, but 7 vs 15-20 is a big difference, and most people will notice the discrepancy on HD channels. It's often said that Uverse looks "softer," without the fine-grain detail provided in the higher quality cable streams.
Anyway, like I said at first, I'm glad you like your Uverse better, and I'm not trying to say yours doesn't look better. Maybe you had a crappy cable feed or something. Just trying to point out for those who might be considering Uverse that the TV portion, at least, is likely to be of a slightly lower quality than standard cable. It does come with some other benefits though, and, of course, the internet speed is phenomenal for the price.
1) Cable network produces signal.
2) Provider compresses / otherwise messes with signal.
3) You watch signal.
With that in mind, I have two comments.
Comment A:
To my knowledge, there are no networks that currently produce a 1080p signal. It doesn't matter what happens farther down the chain; you can't go higher than the source. So your Uverse service does not provide channels in 1080p, but, rather, in 720p, or 1080i.
Comment B:
The vast majority of people (according to my limited internet research) state that Uverse HD doesn't look as good as standard cable HD. From what I can find, most cable providers allocate about 15-20mbit/s per HD channel, while Uverse allocates 7. Uverse does use a different compression scheme that improves quality per bit, but 7 vs 15-20 is a big difference, and most people will notice the discrepancy on HD channels. It's often said that Uverse looks "softer," without the fine-grain detail provided in the higher quality cable streams.
Anyway, like I said at first, I'm glad you like your Uverse better, and I'm not trying to say yours doesn't look better. Maybe you had a crappy cable feed or something. Just trying to point out for those who might be considering Uverse that the TV portion, at least, is likely to be of a slightly lower quality than standard cable. It does come with some other benefits though, and, of course, the internet speed is phenomenal for the price.
HD. What's the deal?
20/12/2010 06:27:40 PM
- 1385 Views
I used to work at a cable company. A few things:
20/12/2010 06:53:15 PM
- 882 Views
Re: I used to work at a cable company. A few things:
20/12/2010 07:42:11 PM
- 979 Views
Re: Filling the entire screen
20/12/2010 09:59:35 PM
- 867 Views
If the picture isn't filling the screen, then it's not HD
21/12/2010 04:06:27 AM
- 944 Views
Time for a new eye glasses exam *NM*
20/12/2010 08:01:29 PM
- 434 Views
Re: Time for a new eye glasses exam
20/12/2010 08:22:21 PM
- 883 Views
Well damn...
20/12/2010 09:33:58 PM
- 768 Views
I'm glad you like it better, but everything I've read says that's incorrect.
21/12/2010 07:06:26 PM
- 727 Views
If you have to ask....
20/12/2010 09:36:01 PM
- 872 Views
I can see the wrinkles and nose hairs much more clearly. I am not necessarily keen on HD. TMI. *NM*
21/12/2010 12:43:59 AM
- 401 Views
Re: I can see the wrinkles and nose hairs much more clearly. I am not necessarily keen on HD. TMI.
21/12/2010 11:10:29 AM
- 711 Views
The deal is... you've gone crazy!
21/12/2010 04:45:33 AM
- 1154 Views
The only Blu-Ray I've seen is those in the stores comparing that to DVD.
21/12/2010 04:48:04 AM
- 860 Views
No one seems to have asked you this yet.
21/12/2010 05:56:55 PM
- 962 Views
Since everyone else seems to think you're weird or offbase...
21/12/2010 11:35:42 PM
- 831 Views
There's nothing wrong with not caring, only with not being able to tell.
22/12/2010 02:31:24 PM
- 723 Views
I'm with you, dude.
22/12/2010 07:12:24 AM
- 706 Views
Blu-ray looks fantastic on the right set, but I wouldn't go crazy over subscription media. *NM*
22/12/2010 02:20:16 PM
- 419 Views
Have you let your horse at the special mushroom patch again?
22/12/2010 02:40:21 PM
- 838 Views
Damn!
22/12/2010 03:16:39 PM
- 727 Views
If you really want to see the difference, watch HD only for 1 month then switch back! Like wine...
23/12/2010 11:34:13 PM
- 704 Views
Something's wrong witg your settings, or you have a perception problem....
26/12/2010 08:36:07 PM
- 913 Views
So... My conclusions from this discussion.
28/12/2010 03:03:13 PM
- 797 Views
I've seen people with the exact same problem as you before
30/12/2010 12:25:00 AM
- 719 Views
So I'm an idiot for not believing in the all mighty power of the HDTV?
30/12/2010 12:31:44 AM
- 808 Views
No...
30/12/2010 02:05:18 PM
- 749 Views
I fail to see how calling him names contributes to this discussion. *NM*
03/01/2011 11:11:35 AM
- 411 Views
Re: I fail to see how calling him names contributes to this discussion.
04/01/2011 10:27:43 AM
- 757 Views
Re: I fail to see how calling him names contributes to this discussion.
06/01/2011 08:28:25 AM
- 786 Views