Tata Sky - DVD Quality??

[hemantwaghe]

Hi All - Tata sky is claiming DVD quality. But all dvd players have Componant (3 Cable) video out wheras it has only composite ( single Cable) on Tata Sky Settop box.- no HDMI output is announced.
My first question is - anyone compared quality of tata sky against a good DVD's quality with componant/HDMI out?
What about audio quality?? As good as CD?I doubt.
In the and - anyone announced HDMI set top boxed in india?

 

[soundsgreat]

Hi,
Well U've hit the nail on the head my friend !! (for starting such a topic)

No way in hell can a tata sky connection give you a dvd quality picture & cd quality sound !,let alone dvd quality some channels arent even comparable to VHS and sound no doubt you get stereo but cd quality forget bout it.


I have ZEE's dishtv for over a 1.5 yrs nw, so I know the stuff ( you might ask that doesn't qualify me to comment bout TATA SKY,well I've done some research on that aswell)

ZEE use's ZENEGA set-top box where as TATA uses THOMPSON and both have their own user interface thats the difference otherwise both are same

Same piece of junk with only composite video out( not even an S-VIDEO) and a lousy pair of analog out ( no CO-AXIAL NO OPTICAL) no secend pair in case you want to connect it to both the TV and an AVR

So its just a marketing gimmick as far as Am concerned & people are falling for it ! .I have had huge arguments with all the ZEE people from the begaining bout the set-top box but they say they cant do nothing as the company only imports these basic models ( however they do have a DVR priced @16K, but even that doesn't hv any other output facility than the regular,the main USP of that unit is recording thats it !) so no one has a HDMI or even an S-VIDEO out box in the offering as of now.

I hope I've not said anything wrong,If so please excuse me !


Regards.

 

[hemantwaghe]

First Thanks - thanks Soundgreat!
Being a marketing guy in Mass Market Consumer AV - i thought it was markeying gimmic!
Also my friends are telling me that in US and UK you get full HD transmission with 5.1 sound! Can we expect someday ? Or Other wise the full HD lcd's will be useless - In fact I heard that sometiomes normal TV singnal looks pathetic on full HD lcd? Anyone to confirm?
Thanks

 

[particleman]

I am happy you have posted on this topic as I've wondered the same thing pretty often. In fact, I sent out (polite) e-mail messages to several companies concerned (Tata, Hathway, etc) asking them: you have advertised your service as "digital" but yet the so-called "last mile" -- the connection from the set-top box to the TV/Receiver is an analog connection! So is it not false advertising? Needless to say, no replies from any party.

I am curious to know more about IPTV if anyone on this board has some experience. Someone on another board mentioned it was capable of HD content. If so that sounds pretty exciting.

To address your last point, it depends on the video scaler the TV uses. For example a TV with a high quality Faroudja chip will do an excellent job of deinterlacing and scaling a SD picture to display well even on a fairly large screen.

 

[smedhavi]

Hi,

There is some good news on the horizon. We might get HDTV in India soon. Surprisingly, it may start with our much underrated Doordarshan going HD!
http://www.indiantelevision.com/interviews/y2k7/executive/b_s_lalli.php

I am also expecting more DTH service providers in the near future because INSAT 4C (Replacement) satellite is finally up. I know that Reliance and Bharti Airtel are planning DTH service, but Reliance is not looking at HD for sure.

I think INSAT 4C has MPEG4 transponders, unlike the other satellites which have MPEG2.
So one day we might really have true HD signal in India. Keep your fingers crossed

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[Nishanth]

Technically it is possible to offer DVD quality picture and CD quality sound through DTH but due to the lack of transponders and high price the DTH operators in India compress these channels to pack in as many number of channels possible into the available transponders.

DTH operators apply different amount of compression for different channels,for example - TATA Sky applies little compression to their STAR
channels and other popular channels.While DISH TV uses less compression for their Zee channels,so you find that quality of channels are not consistent.This might change once more transponders are available to these DTH operators.

A composite output is enough to deliver DVD quality picture and CD quality sound,the issue is with the compression that DTH operators use.

I think CAS system offers slightly better quality video and sound as of now and I am saying this with reference to Hathway's CAS.This is because they do not have constraints like lack of transponder and the the cable wire can carry a lot of data,which means less compression.

smedhavi,Doordarshan would offer HD but for other DTH operators it would not be commercially viable to offer HD transmission.But with HD TV prices falling,they would should be launching it pretty soon.The number of available transponders are also a issue for HD transmission.There is already a big waiting list till 2009 for transponders with new DTH operators like Bharati and Reliance entering the market.

MPEG4 is a codec used for compression and it has nothing to do with transponders.The DTH operators compress the source material using
MPEG4 or MPEG2 in their control room in real time and they uplink the data to the satellites.So you can also use MPEG4 in older satellites too .Technically I think both MPEG4 and MPEG2 offer the same quality picture but MPEG4 produces good quality picture and sound with more compression,which means you can pack more channels into a single transponder.MPEG2 is used in Blu-ray,HD-DVD and DVD,so it shows that it s no way inferior to MPEG4 when it comes to picture quality.

Regards
Nishanth

 

[Viki]

I'm on DishTV, and they recently launched a set top box with a PC output - i.e. VGA output. A simple VGA to component breakout cable means I am now using the component input to my receiver. Hav'nt really benchmarked the difference, but there's a definite improvement. The STB is just Rs. 1000 more than the regular one.

Viki

 

[Sat]

Guys,

You should be having at least a smile on your face, that we are getting better quality than what we used to get before a couple of years back.

(Pl. don't hit me for the above quot!!!!! It's just a thought at the back of my mind. Just forget it ! Apologies ! )

I just have some questions

1. Whether our eyes can feel or see the difference between so called Tata Sky quality and a DVD quality? when we are viewing from a costant distance.

2. Quality of pictures will also depend on what type of TV you have i.e. a CRT or a plasma?

Most importantly, some day DTH will help in eliminate the cable web over our heads.

These are just my opinions.

Sat

 

[soundsgreat]

Hi Guys,

Sorry for the delayed response as I was preoccupied with stuff.

Now coming to the point,with reference to Nishant I certainly beg to differ to his views on dvd quality on composite video and compression of MPEG4 being better then MPEG2.

MPEG4 is high compression format where the video quality is not completely restored when decompressed ( same way as the MP3) where as the MPEG2 is "THE" video standard for so many formats and it is a encoding and compression format where the quality is the atmost important then anything else which is only comparable to uncompressed AVI format, so in no means or way can you compare MPEG4 to MPEG2,it would be comparing cd sound to MP3( hope now some one does not say that MP3 is better then CD)

now talking about the dvd quality picture on composite video,if that were the case then they didn't have to invent component and progressive scan and now HDMI with 1080p they would've stuck to plain old vanilla composite.the thing with composite video is all the data i,e chroma lumninence and brightness are mixed and sent and the video section in the TV where all these is segmented and sent to the respective stages for further processing before being displayed.in component its not the case with other types, all the video data is pre split in the form of Y,Pb,Pr (chroma,luminence,brightness) so there is no need for the same to be done in the TV,so the signal directly goes for processing and displayed hence the better quality of picture.Most of the DVD players the video section itself has separate DAC's ranging from 54Mhz to 208Mhz and from 8 Bits to 14 Bits so comparing all these with the plain old composite is how far debatable is left on the one's understanding of the subject.

Another thing that Nishant mentioned is compression levels that each uses for their own channels,again I dun know how thats true as I have the dishtv for over an year now and I can vouch for the fact that Zee Tv in dishtv is no better then star on the same,the real difference in the picture quality that I have noticed is in the foreign channels (ex: DWTV,TV5 Asia Etc) where even in the composite you can easily make out the quality difference.

Now coming to the sat questions:
1. Whether our eyes can feel or see the difference between so called Tata Sky quality and a DVD quality? when we are viewing from a costant distance.

Yes you can 100%

2. Quality of pictures will also depend on what type of TV you have i.e. a CRT or a plasma?

Yes true you right but not entirely,you see more then plasma TV CRT and LCD it depends on what the spec of that TV is irrespective of the type to judge the quality, for example an 100Hz progressive scan CRT will any day outperform any regular plasma or LCD .in fact I still prefer CRT for viewing then plasma and LCD for Obvious reasons, this in itself is separate topic which I don't want mix it here.


Hope I have shed some light on this topic with the above information and hope I have not offended any one in the process,if so please excuse me as my intension is not that.I am just trying to share the details of the technology.

Regards,

 

[smedhavi]

Hi "soundsgreat",

>>>Another thing that Nishant mentioned is compression levels that each uses for their own channels,again I dun know how thats true as I have the dishtv for over an year now and I can vouch for the fact that Zee Tv in dishtv is no better then star on the same...

I agree to Nishant. I have been using DishTV for two years, and I do see the difference in both audio and video. I have it connected to a DLP projector projecting it on a 90" screen, and the audio goes to Monitor audio RS6 via NAD C372.

Your preference for CRT is quite interesting

Regards,
Sharad

 

[soundsgreat]

Hi Sharad,

Am confused now !

What do you mean by you agree with Nishant ? do you really see the difference between star and zee in dishtv through your DLP ?

yes it might sound strange ! but Iam still yet to see a Plasma or LCD which outperforms the good old tube in depth and overall skintone and texture ( even the most expensive with all the technology fails in 1 or other depo when compared to the CRT).


Regards.

 

[smedhavi]

Yes. On Dish TV I can see that the Zee channels have a better picture and sound than channels from other providers. MTv is really bad, specially the sound (sounds like low bitrate mp3), while it is fine on Hathway cable.

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[soundsgreat]

Hi sharad,

good to hear that you see the difference.but the actucal point that I was making with nishant's views was the difference between Star channels quality in tatasky Vs the same in dishtv and Zee channels quality in tatasky Vs dishtv.

If you read my post I've very clearly mentioned the same( even in your post where U've highlighted my point).

Regards.

 

[smedhavi]

>>>.but the actucal point that I was making with nishant's views was the difference between Star channels quality in tatasky Vs the same in dishtv and Zee channels quality in tatasky Vs dishtv.

OK, let me reconfirm again. Yes, Zee is less compressed in dishtv while Star channels are less compressed in tatasky. I have personally experienced this

Thanks,
Sharad

 

[soundsgreat]

Hi Sharad,

Well thats news for me !

Thanks for your inputs buddy.

Regards.

 

[moserw]

I have Dish TV at home for the past couple of years and yes while the quality might not be DVD, its certainly comparable to DivX at least and even the audio in 2 Channel is better than the analog coming through cable TV.

Coming to TVs, I was in the market for a 42 inches Plasma TV and after checking a lot on cable, Dish TV, Tata Sky, and even carrying my own DVDs and DivX movies, I have realized in the 42 inches and above category Plasma is better than LCD, but CRT is the best of the lot yet. Plasma and LCD have a long way to go at least in Indian models before they deliver better picture than a CRT. I have watched the same movie, MacKenna's Gold on my Panasonic 29" CRT and it delivers a great picture when compared to an LCD or a Plasma of 42 inches and I have checked them all. Even Tata Sky looks bad on some LCDs and Plasma TVs, but rocks on my CRT TV. It just does not justify paying premium for an LCD or a Plasma when they cannot outperform good old CRT in cable, Dish TV, Tata Sky and DVD/DivX. Now when it comes to HDMI and Blu-Ray yeah they rock and that's what most dealers do, they put on Blu-Ray DVDs for demo and let people purchase thinking they will get the same 1080p glory in their home, but this is not true. We still have a long way to go before Blu-Ray, HDMI, etc. is our mainstay of viewing. As of now CRT rocks for cable, Dish TV, Tata Sky, DVD and DivX viewing which is what 99% of us watch and will continue with for a while yet.

 

[SuhasG]

Coming to TVs..................

but CRT is the best of the lot yet. Plasma and LCD have a long way to go at least in Indian models before they deliver better picture than a CRT.

.............

Even Tata Sky looks bad on some LCDs and Plasma TVs, but rocks on my CRT TV. It just does not justify paying premium for an LCD or a Plasma when they cannot outperform good old CRT in cable, Dish TV, Tata Sky and DVD/DivX.

Now when it comes to HDMI and Blu-Ray yeah they rock and that's what most dealers do, they put on Blu-Ray DVDs for demo and let people purchase thinking they will get the same 1080p glory in their home, but this is not true. We still have a long way to go before Blu-Ray, HDMI, etc. is our mainstay of viewing.

...........

As of now CRT rocks for cable, Dish TV, Tata Sky, DVD and DivX viewing which is what 99% of us watch and will continue with for a while yet.

That's what I also realized and decided to stick to my 29" , 100 Hz Sammy CRT (was lucky enough to grab that last piece of GEM that Sammy prodcued) . We don't watch much of a movie , TV viewing is limited to Tata Sky only and Sammy does this job far better than those LCDs and Plasmas. Further given the room size and viewing distance possible , 29" is the best, max and safest size. For real movie experience we have a multiplex nearby!

 

[thevortex]

Neither is it DVD quality picture nor is it CD quality sound. I will even forgive the picture quality because it is certainly not bad by any means. But the sound is indeed poor - because of the analog connections provided.

And Soundsgreat - I am with you on the CRT. I watch sports a lot and I am yet to see a Plasma or an LCD which eliminates all ghosting the way CRTs do. Watching sports action on a Plasma or an LCD for long durations gives me a headache!

 

[square_wave]

Guys,
The problem is not with the technology. It depends on what you watch on plasma and LCD.
Theoretically speaking ??carefully calibrated CRT monitors? gives you the truest color. But this is a best case scenario where you test the quality between all these different screens with the best possible source and it applies only to professional calibrated monitors used in the graphics industry. Even this is used only in very color critical industries. All your regular animation movies are done on lcd monitors.

We have the best 34 inch 100hz CRT tv ever made by Sony in my office to test the computer game graphics we do. Any 32 inch Lcd will beat the CRT in every department while playing games from a PS3, X-Box or watching DVD using a upscaling dvd player or Blu-ray. There is no comparison.

For low resolution Indian TV Broadcast ?? CRT is the best.
For everything else (especially movies lovers and gamers) ?? Lcd or Plasma

 

[thevortex]

Guys,
The problem is not with the technology. It depends on what you watch on plasma and LCD.
Theoretically speaking ??carefully calibrated CRT monitors? gives you the truest color. But this is a best case scenario where you test the quality between all these different screens with the best possible source and it applies only to professional calibrated monitors used in the graphics industry. Even this is used only in very color critical industries. All your regular animation movies are done on lcd monitors.

We have the best 34 inch 100hz CRT tv ever made by Sony in my office to test the computer game graphics we do. Any 32 inch Lcd will beat the CRT in every department while playing games from a PS3, X-Box or watching DVD using a upscaling dvd player or Blu-ray. There is no comparison.

For low resolution Indian TV Broadcast ?? CRT is the best.
For everything else (especially movies lovers and gamers) ?? Lcd or Plasma

I dont understand this squarewave. Are you saying that ghosting is present more in CRT than in LCD? I have watched 50+inch Plasmas from Panasonic (Viera) and they are an eyesore when watching fast moving sports action. For anybody with an LCD or a Plasma TV, just try following the cricket ball with your eyes when watching a match. I think that should show you what I mean. The blur effect produced on a ball - even a football mind you - is mighty offputting.