HD picture not even close to HD - too much compression

[pulseman]

If anyone from AT@T is reading this, I want to let you know(you probably already knew it but anyway)  that your HD PQ quality is horrible and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

I don't know what you need to do to fix it, let it be pair bonding to increase your bandwidth or customized profiles to better fit your customer needs, the HD quality needs to be improved if you want to keep me as a customer and many many others that complain here. For example, since I have only 1 HDTV, you should be able to set my UVERSE profile to use all the available bandwidth for 1 HD stream only instead of 2 HD streams, which will greatly remove all compression artifacts in the HD picture and make it actually look HD quality for a change.

Additionally, I am sorry to say but the people who think HD quality is good on UVERSE, it is because they haven't seen anything better. Watch Sunrise Earth on TWC here in Del Mar, San Diego and you will be amazed by the clarity and sharpness of the picture compared to the pixellated mess on UVERSE, which makes me wonder why they call it HD in the first place and have to pay 10 dollars for such as sub bar feature. To tell you the truth, I get very jealous every time I go to my friend's house who has TWC.

Are there any plans to address this very important issue? If so, when should we expect HD picture improvements?

Thanks,

-pulseman

[callmeox ACE - Professor]

Wow, nothing like jumping in and telling folks here that they are dumb sheep who don't know better.

Welcome to the forum. 

You could have the entire pipe open to TV and it wouldn't change the HD PQ unless ATT wants to adapt their HD compression to accomodate many different possible line speeds.

[RCSMG ACE - Expert]

Take a look at this, it has helped people get a much better hd picture.  Just a thought.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&thread.id=18758&jump=true

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

---

pulseman wrote:

Additionally, I am sorry to say but the people who think HD quality is good on UVERSE, it is because they haven't seen anything better.

---

Since you are not in the homes of every U-verse HD subscriber, you cannot say what everyone else is experiencing or have experienced with other providers.  I switched from Dish Network to U-verse, and my HD quality on U-verse compares favorably with the HD quality that I received with Dish.

[skeeterintexas]

---

pulseman wrote:

Additionally, I am sorry to say but the people who think HD quality is good on UVERSE, it is because they haven't seen anything better. Watch Sunrise Earth on TWC here in Del Mar, San Diego and you will be amazed by the clarity and sharpness of the picture compared to the pixellated mess on UVERSE,......

---

____________________________________

Cool, I've always wanted to visit San Diego!!!!!! 

What time should I get there?  Need me to bring anything?  You are picking me up at the airport, right?  Can I bring somebody?  Do you have enough room? 

 

[oz_1 ACE - Master]

It may be bad at your location but not mine and I do have something to compare to I was once a Comcast HD subscriber and I have an OPPO

Blue-Ray player besides an ATSC tuner for OTA  and 

---

pulseman wrote:

If anyone from AT@T is reading this, I want to let you know(you probably already knew it but anyway)  that your HD PQ quality is horrible and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

I don't know what you need to do to fix it, let it be pair bonding to increase your bandwidth or customized profiles to better fit your customer needs, the HD quality needs to be improved if you want to keep me as a customer and many many others that complain here. For example, since I have only 1 HDTV, you should be able to set my UVERSE profile to use all the available bandwidth for 1 HD stream only instead of 2 HD streams, which will greatly remove all compression artifacts in the HD picture and make it actually look HD quality for a change.

Additionally, I am sorry to say but the people who think HD quality is good on UVERSE, it is because they haven't seen anything better. Watch Sunrise Earth on TWC here in Del Mar, San Diego and you will be amazed by the clarity and sharpness of the picture compared to the pixellated mess on UVERSE, which makes me wonder why they call it HD in the first place and have to pay 10 dollars for such as sub bar feature. To tell you the truth, I get very jealous every time I go to my friend's house who has TWC.

Are there any plans to address this very important issue? If so, when should we expect HD picture improvements?

Thanks,

-pulseman

---

 is set up at a variable bit rate unlike its competition in order for them to squeeze more

channels in they have to lower their bit rate on their current infrastructure one last note if your picture is pixelating then you have line or equipment

problems and a tech needs to check it out. 

[oz_1 ACE - Master]

I have no idea why my post split in half I had no control over it so sorry if it makes it hard to read maybe a moderator can splice it back together.

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

---

oz wrote:
I have no idea why my post split in half I had no control over it so sorry if it makes it hard to read maybe a moderator can splice it back together.

---

Have you tried to edit your post?

[pulseman]

Hi oz,

The picture is not pixelating or anything. Is just the problem is that the HD picture contains usually the following:

1) soften and blurried background objects(i.e tree detail is not sharp when looking at a forest or grass in NFL or soccer games)

2) microblocking on fast moving scenes(i.e moving water)

3) compression artifacts on dark scenes (completely ruins HD sharpness)

4) static objects updated every one sec.(very annoying and unnatural) 

5) soft picture usually on very busy scenes that require higher bitrate to handle to render properly

The reason I have HD is so that I can appreciate all those fine details that were missing from the SD feeds. HD from UVERSE is a little bit better than SD but still all those fine details are not there because of low bandwidth and too much compression.

Thanks,

-pulseman

[GEGCL]

Well, pulseman, I'd have to agree with you. The HD isn't the worst thing I've ever seen, but I've seen better. Antenna TV has much better HD quality than U-verse. You gotta factor in that U-verse HD is only an extra $10.00. Other providers often charge for each HDTV, and different, more expensive HD STBs. In time, I'm sure it will get better, but it's still a developing and competitive market compared to other cable and satellight providers.

[callmeox ACE - Professor]

Your complaints have been discussed here at great length and the net/net is that some subs see them and some don't.

If you use the forum search, you will find the older discussions.

[squareeyes]

i have had the exact same issues with poor hd image quality. could not compare to cox cable or even dvd quality. i'm here in san diego just s. of del mar. i wonder if it's a regional issue or merely a coincidence. also tried calibrating the tv, but no luck compared with other hd sources, so i went back to cox tv until uverse catches up in this area.

---

pulseman wrote:

Hi oz,

The picture is not pixelating or anything. Is just the problem is that the HD picture contains usually the following:

1) soften and blurried background objects(i.e tree detail is not sharp when looking at a forest or grass in NFL or soccer games)

2) microblocking on fast moving scenes(i.e moving water)

3) compression artifacts on dark scenes (completely ruins HD sharpness)

4) static objects updated every one sec.(very annoying and unnatural) 

5) soft picture usually on very busy scenes that require higher bitrate to handle to render properly

The reason I have HD is so that I can appreciate all those fine details that were missing from the SD feeds. HD from UVERSE is a little bit better than SD but still all those fine details are not there because of low bandwidth and too much compression.

Thanks,

-pulseman

---

[pulseman]

Hi callmeox,

I have done a lot of research here before posting my message and I know that many other people compained about the HD quality. I decided to post anyway because I am not satisfied with the current HD quality and I would like create awareness and hopefully the more complaints they get the faster they will do something about it.

I don't know what type of HD quality you have in your location but from where I live, the HD is sub bar and pretty much all of the HD PQ quality issues I have match against what other people have posted here before me. And as you can see, squareeyes, had the same problems too.

squareeyes and GEGCL,

Thanks for confirming that UVERSE HD is not as good as other providers and that my eyes are not deceiving me.

Thanks,

-pulseman

[callmeox ACE - Professor]

If you really want to make an impact and totally get your point across, unsubscribe and when they ask why, tell them that you think the HD PQ stinks.

Complaining in a peer to peer forum isn't going to get it done.

[squareeyes]

i agree.

and fyi pulseman, i kept my uverse internet service (which is just a bit slower then cable's, but includes a wireless router in the deal), and cancelled the tv service to go back to cable. the cost of combined uverse and cox cable service is just a little bit more then if i subscribed fully to one or the other-- even taking into account 'bundle' deals. of course, you lose the excellent uverse interface and more hd channels, but in my case you gain excellent pq, much more variety on demand that's actually in hd, and music choice. for me it's a fair trade until uverse's pq comes around or cox improves their menu system and adds more hd channels.

---

callmeox wrote:

If you really want to make an impact and totally get your point across, unsubscribe and when they ask why, tell them that you think the HD PQ stinks.

Complaining in a peer to peer forum isn't going to get it done.

---

[jhibbs1009]

Thought this could be relevant here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2

[pulseman]

callmeox, 

That is exactly what I am doing right now. Life is too short to waste it on sub bar HD. It is such a shame because I really liked the other features that uverse provides but HD quality is more important to me than anything else since it is a TV service after all! The better the picture, the better for me.

squareeyes,

I agree 100% with you. I will move to TWC and wait and see if uverse gets any better(I highly doubt it as long as they keep squeezing everything inside the 25MB pipe) any time soon. Until then, I will be enjoying an amazing HD picture on TWC. I can't wait! 

[texasguy37 ACE - Expert]

---

pulseman wrote:

callmeox, 

That is exactly what I am doing right now. Life is too short to waste it on sub bar HD. It is such a shame because I really liked the other features that uverse provides but HD quality is more important to me than anything else since it is a TV service after all! The better the picture, the better for me.

squareeyes,

I agree 100% with you. I will move to TWC and wait and see if uverse gets any better(I highly doubt it as long as they keep squeezing everything inside the 25MB pipe) any time soon. Until then, I will be enjoying an amazing HD picture on TWC. I can't wait! 

---

Good luck!

[awhited74]

There are many factors to take into consideration when judging HD quality(bit rate, compression, screen size and quality of the TV among other things). While you obviously think UV HD PQ is lacking. Many others here, me included think the HD PQ is comparable or better than other providers. And as you may already know the great thing about UV is no contracts. So if you are not satisfied you can always go back to TWC and you don't have to pay a penalty.

While this is a peer to peer forum and none of us here work for ATT, we are here to help if we can. Have you looked at your stats and posted them here to see if you are having any line issues?

Click the link below and post your stats here and someone can point whether or not you are having line issues and suggest a possible resolution to your bad HD PQ.

http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=B04&THISPAGE=B01&NEXTPAGE=B04

Just curious what is the make and model of your TV and what is the make and model of your neighbors TV?

Hope that helps.

[pulseman]

:awhited74,

thanks for trying to help but I already called TWC and ordered their HD service. They dont have contracts either so I can move back to uverse any time I want if they ever fix their HD quality issues. My dsl line looks very clean with only 93 corrected blocks and 0 uncorrected blocks and that is very good I think. There aren't any other types of errors on the statistics page you pointed me to.

Here is the complete summary: 

Statistics

Collected for 21:08:39

  Since Reset Current 24-Hour Interval Current 15-Minute Interval Time Since Last Event   DSL Link Retrains: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Training Errors: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Training Timeouts: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Loss of Framing Failures: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Loss of Signal Failures: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Loss of Power Failures: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Loss of Margin Failures: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Cumulative Errored Seconds: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Severely Errored Seconds: 0 0 0 0:00:00   DSL Corrected Blocks: 93 93 0 10:48:13   DSL Uncorrected Blocks: 0 0 0 0:00:00

I have a 40' Samsung 4069FX 120hz and my friend has the same TV too. We went together and bought them!

thanks,

-pulseman

Message Edited by pulseman on 07-14-2009 09:08 PM

Message Edited by pulseman on 07-14-2009 09:10 PM

[awhited74]

Your stats look pretty good. Nothing out of the ordinary there. Sorry that your UV experience wasn't better.

Here are some links that may help you acheive HD Nirvana.

Samsung LN-Txx69 FAQ's

Samsung LN-xx69 owners thread

[m_jward]

agree, too much compression.  especially with motion...  auto racing content of any sort is worse than SD

[oz_1 ACE - Master]

Are these compression artifacts on a 19/2 instead of a 25/2 line ?

[mibrnsurg ACE - Master]

---

mw8485 wrote:
agree, too much compression.  especially with motion...  auto racing content of any sort is worse than SD

---

I have absolutely great PQ on Nascar, IndyCar and Formula 1 races and any motion is not a problem for my

Panasonic plasma (w/480 Hz Sub-Field Drive).  If you have an LCD built more than a year ago, you might not have

a fast enough motion engine to keep up w/the motion.

Chris

---

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
YRMV IMHO Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

[callmeox ACE - Professor]

---

oz wrote:
Are these compression artifacts on a 19/2 instead of a 25/2 line ?

---

I honestly don't think that it matters at all. The compression is handled at the VHO and is the same for all HD customers, regardless of profile. This is why opening the entire pipe to handle HD would not change the quality at all as any artifacts are introduced in the compress/decompress and not along the wire.

[pulseman]

Nope. 25MB/2HD here. I encourage everyone who is not satisfied with the HD quality to cancel the service and mention it as the reason you canceled, because the longer we support them, the longer(if ever) they will do anything about it.

[callmeox ACE - Professor]

Going with the assumption that there's not an issue specific to your area causing the problems, the only real long term solution for AT&T is to fatten the pipe in some manner (VDSL2, pair bonding). This will allow a higher bandwidth HD stream for all customers and could mean less aggressive compression.

Not all customers see the same HD issues, so I'm not sold that it is strictly a compression problem.

[fl_cyclist]

It is interesting that there is a wide range of views on UV PQ. I watch a lot of HD, I have had OTA, Cable and I watch Blu-Ray. My PQ with UV is on par with what I was getting from cable and slightly less crisp than OTA. But certainly I get no motion artifacts and no pixelation. Living in S. Fl weather issues (lot of wind and strong rain) constantly affected both my OTA and Cable picture. I have had no weather related issues with UV. I am very happy with the PQ, so I guess my advice would be that you need to try it and not just read individual complaints or cudos. Also don't understand how if this was due to compression that everyone would not be saying the same thing.

[oz_1 ACE - Master]

I guess i am one of those that are satisfied since the picture is so close to my OTA its almost impossible to tell the difference on my 42 panny plasma.

[erazoner]

---

fl_cyclist wrote:
It is interesting that there is a wide range of views on UV PQ. I watch a lot of HD, I have had OTA, Cable and I watch Blu-Ray. My PQ with UV is on par with what I was getting from cable and slightly less crisp than OTA. But certainly I get no motion artifacts and no pixelation. Living in S. Fl weather issues (lot of wind and strong rain) constantly affected both my OTA and Cable picture. I have had no weather related issues with UV. I am very happy with the PQ, so I guess my advice would be that you need to try it and not just read individual complaints or cudos. Also don't understand how if this was due to compression that everyone would not be saying the same thing.

---

I also live in San Diego (the city, not northern burbs), and my experience is the same as fl_cyclist, except I have had Cox and DISH for comparison. Granted, I haven't watched them side-by-side, but I don't see any of the problems mentioned on my Toshiba Regza.