Bell or Shaw HDTV

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I can't imagine how much you'd harp on this point if it was Shaw doing what Bell was doing.

Shaw IS doing the exact same thing. I just don't think it is that big of a deal as the quality is perfectly fine for me, is it the highest quality? Nope. But the quality is still a million times better than SD!

You seem to have quite the problem with me for enjoying my Bell TV. If you don't like what I say move along, else bring something to the conversation because you only seem to want to attack me in these threads instead of having any points.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well my guess that it was brought on by compression was because it seems to happen to stations that are originally transmitted in 1080i before Bell compresses them to 720p so they can put 3 stations on one transponder and in the case of HDNET it seems to happen more during concerts when Bell's abilities are being stretched.

In Bells case it has nothing to do with "putting 3 stations on one transponder" it's a case of making fast sports not blurring on screen.
Most Bell channels are broadcasted in 1080i.ch 810 threw 814,Discovery..etc are always in this mode as are most of the HD movie channels unless there just converted sd movies (which alot are.)

Most sports hd channels are compressed to 720p because the framerate is twice as fast as 1080i the exception is golf and a few others like the olympics. ABC recently dropped down to 720p because of complaints of flickering on the football broadcasts.

The only time you will notice a big difference in picture quality is with a very big TV like 55in of larger.

1080i = 1920x1080 pixels with 1/30 framerates
720p = 1280x720 pixels with 1/60 framerates

1080p = 1920x1080 pixels with at least 1/60 framerates (currently no broadcasts available)

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by T@T

In Bells case it has nothing to do with "putting 3 stations on one transponder" it's a case of making fast sports not blurring on screen.

It sure does. If they still had 1080i stations they could only put one full 1080i HD channel on each transponder and one compressed 720p channel. CBC is now being broadcast in 720p and the hockey quality picture has degraded. If you didn't like the 1080i picture maybe your TV isn't up to properly showing it.


Most Bell channels are broadcasted in 1080i.ch 810 threw 814,Discovery..etc are always in this mode as are most of the HD movie channels unless there just converted sd movies (which alot are.)

No, all Bell channels are now in 720p

Most sports hd channels are compressed to 720p because the framerate is twice as fast as 1080i the exception is golf and a few others like the olympics. ABC recently dropped down to 720p because of complaints of flickering on the football broadcasts.

The only time you will notice a big difference in picture quality is with a very big TV like 55in of larger.

1080i = 1920x1080 pixels with 1/30 framerates
720p = 1280x720 pixels with 1/60 framerates

1080p = 1920x1080 pixels with at least 1/60 framerates (currently no broadcasts available)

Maybe you should read post # 28 and the rest of this thread so you'll know what's going on.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...t=84976&page=2

I'm not saying the picture on Bell hasn't improved in the last month or so as it had gotten terrible this summer but a fully uncompressed picture is best and from what I've heard the only way of getting this is Rogers or OTA which should soon be available in Calgary.

Heres an older post and thread from the Bell Tech department acknowledging their compression problems and their upgrades to improve it. This was, I believe, before they started putting three compressed 720p channels on one transponder. It also tells how they change bit rates around depending on the programming and now that some Bell programs are using a bit rate equal to DVD quality.

http://vutechinfo.ca/vuforum/viewtopic.php?t=146

Just to add that I'm watching the hockey game on CBC right now and the picture quality is not bad but not nearly as good as last season when it was in 1080i on my two HD TVs. One is a CRT HD which has a native resolution of 1080i and handles sports very well at that resolution since it isn't limited by refresh rates as many LCDs are.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe you should read post # 28 and the rest of this thread so you'll know what's going on.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...t=84976&page=2

I'm not saying the picture on Bell hasn't improved in the last month or so as it had gotten terrible this summer but a fully uncompressed picture is best and from what I've heard the only way of getting this is Rogers or OTA which should soon be available in Calgary.

Heres an older post and thread from the Bell Tech department acknowledging their compression problems and their upgrades to improve it. This was, I believe, before they started putting three compressed 720p channels on one transponder. It also tells how they change bit rates around depending on the programming and now that some Bell programs are using a bit rate equal to DVD quality.

http://vutechinfo.ca/vuforum/viewtopic.php?t=146

Just to add that I'm watching the hockey game on CBC right now and the picture quality is not bad but not nearly as good as last season when it was in 1080i on my two HD TVs. One is a CRT HD which has a native resolution of 1080i and handles sports very well at that resolution since it isn't limited by refresh rates as many LCDs are.

I hate it when people change posts...learn to quote
I'll choose at this point to believe a good friend at Bell than a bunch of geeks on a tech message board.

But since your in the know with these guys explain why is it when I record an hour of programing from OasisHD does take up approximately 1/3 more space on my harddrive than an hour from TSNHD?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by T@T

I hate it when people change posts...learn to quote
I'll choose at this point to believe a good friend at Bell than a bunch of geeks on a tech message board.

But since your in the know with these guys explain why is it when I record an hour of programing from OasisHD does take up approximately 1/3 more space on my harddrive than an hour from TSNHD?

Sorry about the quote problem but as explained, Bell changes the bit rate depending on the programming. It's all still in 720p but they'll allot more space to a nature program than say a show filmed in a studio. Oasis etc, and CBC were until recently broadcast in 1080i.
This is no longer the case as Bell is needing more room for new channels and oh yeah, I hate it when people haven't read the links I've posted before they reply. I say this because if you read my links, you'd understand why Oasis uses more space.

As for these nerds, one of them works as a contractor for Bell, others work in the industry, the moderator is a retired engineer who does professional calibrations of TVs and home theater systems. For my money this is probably the best and most respected board of it's type in Canada and doesn't put up with any bull. Having said that Bell employees are notorious for marching to the companies tune and only know what Bell tells them and everybody knows even here, Bell are a pack of liars.

Hey, I've been a Bell TV subscriber for about ten years and I like their product, but that doesn't mean I won't criticize them for their shortcomings or try to correct statements that I believe are wrong.

[Draug]

Originally Posted by greerb

Starchoice is uncompressed. The PVR sucks compared to Bell . . .

Vulcan, can you confirm this?

Does Starchoice send HD signals at ~18Mbps like HD should be, rather than Bell's 10-12 right now?

Just how much worse is the starchoice PVR? I would consider switching from Bell to SC for compression free HD, especially now that SC offers CI. On the large plasm, compression is a bitch!

[Vulcan]

I know little about Star Choice but I've heard from their site at Digital Home Canada, they have their compression problems too. Here's one thread which talks about the various quality of programs.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...ht=compression

I'm not going to move. Bells quality is okay but it could be better and I've got too much invested. I also don't think I could go to an inferior PVR.

[skins]

Trying to decide between these two. It sounds like people generally have more technical headaches with Bell, but put up with it because of the better programming and picture quality. Shaw seems to be more reliable with better customer service, but less HD content.

What about startup costs? With Bell I would have to buy a receiver (HD-PVR is $400) and a dish (???), right? But that combined should be less than a shaw box (HD-PVR is $650).

For similar programming bundled with internet, the monthly costs aren't too different. Bell would be cheaper by about $10-$15 a month. What's Bell's internet like? Download speeds look a lot slower than Shaw.

Thanks in advance!

[MrMastodonFarm]

I would say you've done your research, not much I can add. The thing I would add is the contract with Bell. I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. With Shaw I can call and cancel anytime, with Bell I couldn't. Bell doesn't have good customer support because they don't have to.

I've alwaya heard that Bell is superior quality, but I don't buy it. My quality is great and comparable to any Bell user I've seen. Shaw is slower to add content though, but thet are currently up to 30 HD channels, they don't have some of the HD time shifting that Bell has to boast their HD count.

Over the many years I've had shaw I've gotten diagusted with the customer service once. The one time I've inquired about Bell my frustration level reached a peak higher then Shaws ever did.

[kevman]

Having used both I think the quality difference is largely exaggerated. Does Shaw compression block a little more than Bell? Maybe.... the only time I've ever noticed it is high speed pans of sporting crowds and frankly that doesn't take away from the glory of HD. That said this could have also been a result of the Bell dish running through a much better Pioneer Plasma compared to my Sharp Aquos.

I'd also like to add how much I prefer the shaw guide system to Bells. Changing the channels with the Bell system was painfully slow and frustrating. Shaw's guide works like it should, quick and lag free! Perhaps this isn't a big deal to you but when I want to pull up the guide and change the channel I don't want it to take a few seconds.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by skins

Trying to decide between these two. It sounds like people generally have more technical headaches with Bell, but put up with it because of the better programming and picture quality. Shaw seems to be more reliable with better customer service, but less HD content.

What about startup costs? With Bell I would have to buy a receiver (HD-PVR is $400) and a dish (???), right? But that combined should be less than a shaw box (HD-PVR is $650).

For similar programming bundled with internet, the monthly costs aren't too different. Bell would be cheaper by about $10-$15 a month. What's Bell's internet like? Download speeds look a lot slower than Shaw.

Thanks in advance!

My question to people who complain about the customer service is why are you phoning so much to get frustrated? I have had bell for years and years and had to make very few calls into their customer service since most things can be done on the internet.

As for the technical side, hold the power button down for 5 seconds fixes about 90% of all issues with Bell.

The dish will be included with your receiver/installation so that will be no extra cost to you. I would not recommend their internet, I have Bell TV and Shaw internet because Shaw does offer the best internet.

Either way you make the right decision, you either get superior HD quality and channels or superior customer service. You just have to decided what is more important to you. IMO it's the programming as you can always hang up on customer service and try again, programming your stuck with what they give you.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by kevman

I'd also like to add how much I prefer the shaw guide system to Bells. Changing the channels with the Bell system was painfully slow and frustrating. Shaw's guide works like it should, quick and lag free! Perhaps this isn't a big deal to you but when I want to pull up the guide and change the channel I don't want it to take a few seconds.

What system did you have? My 9242 changes channels pretty quick and the guide is just as fast as what I have seen from Shaw at a friends house.

On that note the Bell remote is a 1000X better than the Shaw remote, and I have heard that from almost every Shaw user I know after they use the Bell remote at my place.

[mikey_the_redneck]

As a Bell customer for 7+ years, I can honestly say their customer service is AWFUL.
Sometimes I forget I live in a primarily english speaking country when I phone them. I always end up with either the french guy I cant understand or the east indian guy I cant understand.........and it can be quite a headache just to make programming changes etc.

So I am still a little unclear about this whole 720p/1080i setting on my Bell HD reciever.............the Bell technician set my reciever at 1080i, but I currently have it set at 720p, is this the optimal way to go?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Also, since I have switched from STD Bell to HD Bell, the channel guide is a little clumsy now. Its not as quick, like when I release the up/down button, the guide still flicks up/down a few more spots, it's just not sharp and accurate you know? Kind of irritating.............

And someone mentioned audio bumps.......like Sportsnet has to be the worst for this! The commercials are so much louder than the programming..... Is there any way around this?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by HOOT

My question to people who complain about the customer service is why are you phoning so much to get frustrated? I have had bell for years and years and had to make very few calls into their customer service since most things can be done on the internet.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=69387

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...highlight=Bell

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...highlight=Bell

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...highlight=Bell

Either way you make the right decision, you either get superior HD quality and channels or superior customer service.

Still not convinced Bell has "superior" HD quality. They have more programing, but superior quality is highly debatable.

On that note the Bell remote is a 1000X better than the Shaw remote, and I have heard that from almost every Shaw user I know after they use the Bell remote at my place.

I haven't used the Bell remote that much so I can't comment on that, but I do enjoy the Shaw remote. The big flaw with it is that.. it fails. I've had two in the past year. The first one the power button stopped working, and now the 2nd one is having the same problem. Shaw will replace it free of charge, but it's still a pain in the ass.

I wish it was backlight though.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by HOOT

My question to people who complain about the customer service is why are you phoning so much to get frustrated? I have had bell for years and years and had to make very few calls into their customer service since most things can be done on the internet.

As for the technical side, hold the power button down for 5 seconds fixes about 90% of all issues with Bell.

You think i would want to call them if I didnt' have to? That power down sounds all good and nice but 90% of the time it did not work.

It took me 3 DAYS to get a hd receiver i bought from a fellow cp'er switched over to me, even though he had called ahead of time and told Bell he had sold it to me and gave them my information.

I just loved cutting that girl down to pieces when they transferred me over to retention to cancel my account. They offered me 2 free hd pvrs and 6months of free programming which caught me off guard because thats a pretty good deal until i realized, crap i'd still be with bell after those 6 months.

Even after i cancelled it took them almost 2 months to send the boxes for their rental pvrs.

The only good thing to come out of the bell experience was that I got my shaw hd pvr for free when i switched back over.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by skins

What's Bell's internet like? Download speeds look a lot slower than Shaw.

Thanks in advance!

I didn't think that Bell offerred residential internet in Alberta. You may need to double check that.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I didn't think that Bell offerred residential internet in Alberta. You may need to double check that.

They don't.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

.........and it can be quite a headache just to make programming changes etc.

This is what I am confused about. If you have the internet why not make the changes through their website?

Maybe this is why I haven't had the same issues as others, I will do things on my own instead of frustrating myself by talking to them.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

And someone mentioned audio bumps.......like Sportsnet has to be the worst for this! The commercials are so much louder than the programming..... Is there any way around this?

I'm pretty sure that it's the network, not the provider that makes that happen. I notice it at almost anyone's house I go to.

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Still not convinced Bell has "superior" HD quality. They have more programing, but superior quality is highly debatable.

Thanks for the links. I forgot a company that has MILLIONS of customer would be able to please everyone. I'm sure Shaw hasn't had one complaint since it started up.

I'm sure it's debatable just like anything, depending on the stance you want to take. But I have see the two, on the same TV, in the same house. I use to have both and did a little test of my own. So let's skip quality since you don't want to believe it and talk selection.

But why even have this conversation? You are stuck in your Shaw ways, and me with Bell. I think anyone who posts here knows that. So how about from now on we just skip quoting each other and move on with this topic.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Is there something that made you so snippy about my post you had to reply like that?

Originally Posted by HOOT

Thanks for the links. I forgot a company that has MILLIONS of customer would be able to please everyone. I'm sure Shaw hasn't had one complaint since it started up..

Sorry, that wasn't the point of my post, and posting those links. You asked why people would have to call in, and I posted reasons why people did.

I'm sure it's debatable just like anything, depending on the stance you want to take. But I have see the two, on the same TV, in the same house. I use to have both and did a little test of my own. So let's skip quality since you don't want to believe it and talk selection

So let me get this straight, make sure I'm hearing you properly. I don't agree with you, and it's because I "don't want to believe it"?

I think it's great you did your own tests, I've done my due diligence as well. I'm not with Shaw because I have a stake in the company, if I thought Bell was the right move, I'd do it. Let's not get babyish by suggesting it's because "I don't want to believe it".

What an ignorant way of you to respond. Talking with you about Bell is like talking to an Oiler fan about the Oilers.