Re: UV compared to Comcast -- first impression
s -- common?
01-18-2010 03:32:08 PM
If you search there are a lot of complaints about the HD picture quality. The problem is with the low bitrate they are using to re-compress the HD, around 5~7Mbps MPEG4 compared to Comcast's 12~19Mbps MPEG2. MPEG4 is about 1.5 to 2 times more efficient than MPEG2, but an average of 6Mbps is still pretty low and leads to macroblocking and blurring during fast-moving and complex shots. However, it depends on your expectations of what HD should look like, so it's a hotly debated subject on these forums.
If HD is really important to you, consider OTA for the locals or DirecTV. Comcast also over-compresses some their channels, so theoretically it should look about the same as U-verse. It may have to do with MPEG2 encoders being more efficient as it's an older and extensively tested standard.Message Edited by datacliff on 01-18-2010 10:38 AM
Not here on my TV, no blurrines or macroblocking during hockey, football, basketbal, Nascar racing,
baseball or any others.
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
Well, again it depends on your expectations. Compared to SD it would certainly look sharp, but if you were to see the same exact picture on most other providers then they would blow U-verse away.