Ask a question
Search in U-verse Forums

U-verse Forums

Reply
Posted Mar 26, 2009
4:02:29 PM
Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

I recently switched to U-verse and noticed immediately an overall darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast, given the same video settings and same HDMI connection.  Some video settings (like brightness and/or contrast) would have to be pushed up on U-verse to get the optimal picture.  Does anyone else experience the same thing?

I recently switched to U-verse and noticed immediately an overall darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast, given the same video settings and same HDMI connection.  Some video settings (like brightness and/or contrast) would have to be pushed up on U-verse to get the optimal picture.  Does anyone else experience the same thing?

Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

2,465 views
67 replies
(0) Me too
(0) Me too
Reply
View all replies
(67)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 9, 2009 5:26:36 PM
0
(0)
Expert

donatom3 wrote:

I know the uverse doesn't output dolby 5.1 over HDMI, neither does the Playstation 3.  What the PS3 does do is output LCPM 7.1 channel over HDMI.  Does Uverse support this as well.  Basically it's sending the raw sound outpout over HDMI instead of the compressed Dolby.  Not all receivers can support this.  My Harmon Kardon can.


 

 At this time, U-Verse will only output 2.0 LPCM over HDMI.

 

But you are very correct in that when the time comes that the U-Verse software is updated to provide 5.1 audio over HDMI, it is likely to be 5.1 LPCM, not 5.1 Dolby Digital.  The reason is that 5.1 LPCM is compliant with any version of HDMI (and therefore any HDMI device), while 5.1 DD requires an HDMI 1.3 compliant device, which not everyone has.

 


donatom3 wrote:

I know the uverse doesn't output dolby 5.1 over HDMI, neither does the Playstation 3.  What the PS3 does do is output LCPM 7.1 channel over HDMI.  Does Uverse support this as well.  Basically it's sending the raw sound outpout over HDMI instead of the compressed Dolby.  Not all receivers can support this.  My Harmon Kardon can.


 

 At this time, U-Verse will only output 2.0 LPCM over HDMI.

 

But you are very correct in that when the time comes that the U-Verse software is updated to provide 5.1 audio over HDMI, it is likely to be 5.1 LPCM, not 5.1 Dolby Digital.  The reason is that 5.1 LPCM is compliant with any version of HDMI (and therefore any HDMI device), while 5.1 DD requires an HDMI 1.3 compliant device, which not everyone has.

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

31 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2009 8:15:12 AM
0
(0)
Master
Actually 1.2a will carry DD5.1.
Actually 1.2a will carry DD5.1.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

32 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2009 6:15:34 PM
0
(0)
Expert

oz wrote:
Actually 1.2a will carry DD5.1.

 

You're right, DD and DTS can both be carried by any version of HDMI, even back to 1.0.

 

1.3 added support for the HD audio formats (Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS High Resolution, and DTS-HD Master Audio).

 

For broadest compatibility, I still think they will probably decode everything to LPCM though.  This is what the PlayStation 3 does when playing back Blu-Ray discs.

 


oz wrote:
Actually 1.2a will carry DD5.1.

 

You're right, DD and DTS can both be carried by any version of HDMI, even back to 1.0.

 

1.3 added support for the HD audio formats (Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, DTS High Resolution, and DTS-HD Master Audio).

 

For broadest compatibility, I still think they will probably decode everything to LPCM though.  This is what the PlayStation 3 does when playing back Blu-Ray discs.

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

33 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Apr 10, 2009 6:18:28 PM
0
(0)
Master
LPCM when done right like the Disney's and Pixar sound really awesome.
LPCM when done right like the Disney's and Pixar sound really awesome.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

34 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
May 26, 2009 8:05:35 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

SInce AT&T has 13 billion in cash reserves. You'd thnik they could afford to hire a programmer that's capable of writing software to solve the dark picture problem. Dish can do it. DirecTV can do it. Comcast can do it. Way can't AT&T. Then you wouldn't have to have a work around for something that should work corrrectly in the first place. AT&T is betting the bank on Uverse and they should deliver a quality product without having work arounds for problems that shouldn't exist.  

 

For me Uverse has been an excellent product and it's amazing how much information they are able to stream over a phone line, with the exception of the dark picture. I haven't tried the component hookup yet ,but will in the near future.  

Message Edited by Bladerunner on 05-26-2009 08:06 PM
Message Edited by Bladerunner on 05-26-2009 08:10 PM

SInce AT&T has 13 billion in cash reserves. You'd thnik they could afford to hire a programmer that's capable of writing software to solve the dark picture problem. Dish can do it. DirecTV can do it. Comcast can do it. Way can't AT&T. Then you wouldn't have to have a work around for something that should work corrrectly in the first place. AT&T is betting the bank on Uverse and they should deliver a quality product without having work arounds for problems that shouldn't exist.  

 

For me Uverse has been an excellent product and it's amazing how much information they are able to stream over a phone line, with the exception of the dark picture. I haven't tried the component hookup yet ,but will in the near future.  

Message Edited by Bladerunner on 05-26-2009 08:06 PM
Message Edited by Bladerunner on 05-26-2009 08:10 PM

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

35 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 31, 2009 1:26:37 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

For me Uverse has been an excellent product and it's amazing how much information they are able to stream over a phone line, with the exception of the dark picture.

I have Comcast now.  A Uverse door-to-door salesman talked me into trying the U200 package.  The attraction is price and features.  We shall see.  You get more feature-wise for the same money.  By running fiber to your neighborhood, they have effectively moved you closer to your central office thereby allowing the link to be faster and more reliable.  Unfortunately the dark picture makes a ton of sense to me.  It indicates higher compression which results in less picture information, which is likely driven by the average bandwidth limitation of their media, which is standard copper POTS lines.  An AT&T T1 line can carry a maximum of 24 digital voice channels on 2 pair of wire, but they limit the frequency spectrum to do so, and to use fax with it requires special dynamic hardware.  They too run fiber to areas in your neighborhood to make it all work.  WIth Uverse we are pushing 4 TV channels with sound and video, two of which can be HD, plus 2 phones that are supposed to be fax capable, and internet up to 24 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up on one pair.  The pair bonding is targeted for distances greater than 3000 feet from the fiber point to compensate for the slower speeds that accrue with distance

The upside for AT&T are the infrastructure costs have already been amortized whereas for cable it's around $9.00 a foot, and one reason why there are few areas with more than one cable provider.  AT&T needed to come out with something like Uverse because they are getting into a position where they need to maintain their current complex and expensive infrastructure, but since the advent of cable TV, cable internet, IP telephony, and cell phones, they can no longer be assured that they will have paying customers along their routes.  If they didn't make a move now, they wouldn't be in a financial position to do it later.  Going digital could save AT&T a lot of money in infrastructure costs.  Cable companies can more easily afford to play the price game if they determine they need to.  The cost for AT&T to roll out fiber to existing locations would be costly as fiber equipment is quite a bit more expensive than cable or POTS.  It may mean they may need to have two services to compete well, one for new areas where customers who would get a better picture and internet speeds, and another for POTS and mixed neighborhoods.  AT&T aren't the only ones competing for fiber installations in new neighborhoods, in fact they are quite late to the game.  However, AT&T (SBC/Ameritech) has historically been a well run and an amazingly resilient company. 

We'll see how it goes.  I like both companies the same.


For me Uverse has been an excellent product and it's amazing how much information they are able to stream over a phone line, with the exception of the dark picture.

I have Comcast now.  A Uverse door-to-door salesman talked me into trying the U200 package.  The attraction is price and features.  We shall see.  You get more feature-wise for the same money.  By running fiber to your neighborhood, they have effectively moved you closer to your central office thereby allowing the link to be faster and more reliable.  Unfortunately the dark picture makes a ton of sense to me.  It indicates higher compression which results in less picture information, which is likely driven by the average bandwidth limitation of their media, which is standard copper POTS lines.  An AT&T T1 line can carry a maximum of 24 digital voice channels on 2 pair of wire, but they limit the frequency spectrum to do so, and to use fax with it requires special dynamic hardware.  They too run fiber to areas in your neighborhood to make it all work.  WIth Uverse we are pushing 4 TV channels with sound and video, two of which can be HD, plus 2 phones that are supposed to be fax capable, and internet up to 24 Mbps down and 2 Mbps up on one pair.  The pair bonding is targeted for distances greater than 3000 feet from the fiber point to compensate for the slower speeds that accrue with distance

The upside for AT&T are the infrastructure costs have already been amortized whereas for cable it's around $9.00 a foot, and one reason why there are few areas with more than one cable provider.  AT&T needed to come out with something like Uverse because they are getting into a position where they need to maintain their current complex and expensive infrastructure, but since the advent of cable TV, cable internet, IP telephony, and cell phones, they can no longer be assured that they will have paying customers along their routes.  If they didn't make a move now, they wouldn't be in a financial position to do it later.  Going digital could save AT&T a lot of money in infrastructure costs.  Cable companies can more easily afford to play the price game if they determine they need to.  The cost for AT&T to roll out fiber to existing locations would be costly as fiber equipment is quite a bit more expensive than cable or POTS.  It may mean they may need to have two services to compete well, one for new areas where customers who would get a better picture and internet speeds, and another for POTS and mixed neighborhoods.  AT&T aren't the only ones competing for fiber installations in new neighborhoods, in fact they are quite late to the game.  However, AT&T (SBC/Ameritech) has historically been a well run and an amazingly resilient company. 

We'll see how it goes.  I like both companies the same.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

36 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 31, 2009 2:11:24 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

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
Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 12-31-2009 05:14 PM

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

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
Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 12-31-2009 05:14 PM
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

37 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 31, 2009 3:30:08 PM
0
(0)
Scholar

mibrnsurg wrote:

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

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
Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 12-31-2009 05:14 PM

 

Darker on HDMI than component?  I didn't see that at all in my "trials" trying futilely to get 5.1 audio working.  I did need to do a minor picture recalibration to get the component looking as good as it could get, and in the end, my "perception" was that HDMI produced a marginally better picture than component.  However, that is just my perception, and the "next guy" might have preferred the picture with component.  :smileyhappy:

mibrnsurg wrote:

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

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
Message Edited by mibrnsurg on 12-31-2009 05:14 PM

 

Darker on HDMI than component?  I didn't see that at all in my "trials" trying futilely to get 5.1 audio working.  I did need to do a minor picture recalibration to get the component looking as good as it could get, and in the end, my "perception" was that HDMI produced a marginally better picture than component.  However, that is just my perception, and the "next guy" might have preferred the picture with component.  :smileyhappy:

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

38 of 68 (1,040 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 31, 2009 3:56:40 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

mibrnsurg wrote:

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

Chris


Hi Chris,
The explanation is quite likely plausible according to this thread:

Folks, this has been a day-1problem, meaning since day-1 when U-verse was launched. Some folks believe that by switching from HDMI to Component helps to rectify the problem, but I have switched from HDMI to component and it still is dark.
I believe you that they have the same situation with the fiber in front of their house because the normal provisioning is at 25 Mbps, unless they are are beyond 3000 feet from the fiber, in which case they cut it to 18 Mbps, and the purpose of pair bonding, which is not widely deployed, is to preserve the 25 Mbps further.  The amount they advertise for their high speed max turbo is 24 Mbps if you are within 3000 feet.  The only place one can use lossy compression is TV and Phone.  So that would mean that 4 TV streams, of which 2 could be HD, and two phones make it on the remaining 1 Mbps.  That's 4 lbs. of stuff in a 2 lb. box.  The compression ratios are necessarily high for either cable or twisted pair compared to Blue-ray etc.  Compression affects the quality and brightness.  Compromises are made with the hope that the customer sees a better value proposition in their product.  It's more likely that customers are seeing the necessary compromises and determining which one they want to go with than it is that AT&T is inept at deploying the hardware technology necessary to present their product in the best possible light. 

I was referred to browse these forums by the salesmen to learn about the trade-offs.  I apprecieated his candor, and that of the engineer who he conferenced in.  It's that type candor, 30 days of like it or leave it, and no contract that talked me into giving it a whirl.  In contrast, try to find out what anything costs on the Comcast site past the promotion period.  I didn't find it.  Hint: It's not in the terms and conditions. :smileyvery-happy:  Moreover, they have recently implemented DNS Hijacking for which I had to download a browser plug-in to defeat.

Thanks for the reply!

mibrnsurg wrote:

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

Chris


Hi Chris,
The explanation is quite likely plausible according to this thread:

Folks, this has been a day-1problem, meaning since day-1 when U-verse was launched. Some folks believe that by switching from HDMI to Component helps to rectify the problem, but I have switched from HDMI to component and it still is dark.
I believe you that they have the same situation with the fiber in front of their house because the normal provisioning is at 25 Mbps, unless they are are beyond 3000 feet from the fiber, in which case they cut it to 18 Mbps, and the purpose of pair bonding, which is not widely deployed, is to preserve the 25 Mbps further.  The amount they advertise for their high speed max turbo is 24 Mbps if you are within 3000 feet.  The only place one can use lossy compression is TV and Phone.  So that would mean that 4 TV streams, of which 2 could be HD, and two phones make it on the remaining 1 Mbps.  That's 4 lbs. of stuff in a 2 lb. box.  The compression ratios are necessarily high for either cable or twisted pair compared to Blue-ray etc.  Compression affects the quality and brightness.  Compromises are made with the hope that the customer sees a better value proposition in their product.  It's more likely that customers are seeing the necessary compromises and determining which one they want to go with than it is that AT&T is inept at deploying the hardware technology necessary to present their product in the best possible light. 

I was referred to browse these forums by the salesmen to learn about the trade-offs.  I apprecieated his candor, and that of the engineer who he conferenced in.  It's that type candor, 30 days of like it or leave it, and no contract that talked me into giving it a whirl.  In contrast, try to find out what anything costs on the Comcast site past the promotion period.  I didn't find it.  Hint: It's not in the terms and conditions. :smileyvery-happy:  Moreover, they have recently implemented DNS Hijacking for which I had to download a browser plug-in to defeat.

Thanks for the reply!

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

39 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Dec 31, 2009 5:00:01 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

When you do get Uverse you will see that HDMI suffers from a 'crushed blacks' problem, that I've

found a solution to lighten scenes/programs.  Sometimes the component image is better and I watch

that as I have both connected and can switch back and forth.

 

24M internet can only be had if you have a 32/5M profile that is being rolled out to certain customers

only.  Selection is by distance from the VRAD, signal to noise ratio, max sync rate; the farthest I've

seen posted was 1600'.  Originally was to be 2200', but recent test was a failure past 1000' and now

they are rolling out VDSL2 w/better S/N rates they are going past 1000'.  This profile will also allow a

3d HD stream in the new year and immediately for new installs.

 

Many users are recommended to calibrate their TVs w/SomeJoe's HDNet calibration method:

 

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=18758#M18758

:smileywink:

 

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

When you do get Uverse you will see that HDMI suffers from a 'crushed blacks' problem, that I've

found a solution to lighten scenes/programs.  Sometimes the component image is better and I watch

that as I have both connected and can switch back and forth.

 

24M internet can only be had if you have a 32/5M profile that is being rolled out to certain customers

only.  Selection is by distance from the VRAD, signal to noise ratio, max sync rate; the farthest I've

seen posted was 1600'.  Originally was to be 2200', but recent test was a failure past 1000' and now

they are rolling out VDSL2 w/better S/N rates they are going past 1000'.  This profile will also allow a

3d HD stream in the new year and immediately for new installs.

 

Many users are recommended to calibrate their TVs w/SomeJoe's HDNet calibration method:

 

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=18758#M18758

:smileywink:

 

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
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

40 of 68 (1,039 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 1, 2010 6:27:36 AM
0
(0)
Scholar

IT_Architect wrote:

mibrnsurg wrote:

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

Chris


Hi Chris,
The explanation is quite likely plausible according to this thread:

Folks, this has been a day-1problem, meaning since day-1 when U-verse was launched. Some folks believe that by switching from HDMI to Component helps to rectify the problem, but I have switched from HDMI to component and it still is dark.
I believe you that they have the same situation with the fiber in front of their house because the normal provisioning is at 25 Mbps, unless they are are beyond 3000 feet from the fiber, in which case they cut it to 18 Mbps, and the purpose of pair bonding, which is not widely deployed, is to preserve the 25 Mbps further.  The amount they advertise for their high speed max turbo is 24 Mbps if you are within 3000 feet.  The only place one can use lossy compression is TV and Phone.  So that would mean that 4 TV streams, of which 2 could be HD, and two phones make it on the remaining 1 Mbps.  That's 4 lbs. of stuff in a 2 lb. box.  The compression ratios are necessarily high for either cable or twisted pair compared to Blue-ray etc.  Compression affects the quality and brightness.  Compromises are made with the hope that the customer sees a better value proposition in their product.  It's more likely that customers are seeing the necessary compromises and determining which one they want to go with than it is that AT&T is inept at deploying the hardware technology necessary to present their product in the best possible light. 

I was referred to browse these forums by the salesmen to learn about the trade-offs.  I apprecieated his candor, and that of the engineer who he conferenced in.  It's that type candor, 30 days of like it or leave it, and no contract that talked me into giving it a whirl.  In contrast, try to find out what anything costs on the Comcast site past the promotion period.  I didn't find it.  Hint: It's not in the terms and conditions. :smileyvery-happy:  Moreover, they have recently implemented DNS Hijacking for which I had to download a browser plug-in to defeat.

Thanks for the reply!

Regarding the bolded statement, it isn't possible to put 4 TV streams and phone, into the remaining 1mbs.  ATT doesn't "guarantee" you 24Mbs of internet.  The actual download rate you get is HIGHLY dependent on the TV streams in use at any particular time.

 

Assuming 2 HD streams in use at 6mbs (might be a bit high based on ATT continually trying to compress the HD stream more and more), and 2SD streams at say 2.5mbs, that is 17mbs of dedicated bandwidth for TV.  Phone takes up a minimal amount, so ignore that, and you are left with approx. 8Mbs of internet bandwidth.  These numbers may vary some, but you get the picture. 

 


IT_Architect wrote:

mibrnsurg wrote:

It's only darker on HDMI and not component, so all your 'explanation' is unneeded.  VDSL can do

wonders over phone lines.  :smileywink:

 

Edit: They do have areas w/FTTPedestal in front of the house and they get the exact same service

as those of us on copper, no higher speeds, etc.

 

Chris


Hi Chris,
The explanation is quite likely plausible according to this thread:

Folks, this has been a day-1problem, meaning since day-1 when U-verse was launched. Some folks believe that by switching from HDMI to Component helps to rectify the problem, but I have switched from HDMI to component and it still is dark.
I believe you that they have the same situation with the fiber in front of their house because the normal provisioning is at 25 Mbps, unless they are are beyond 3000 feet from the fiber, in which case they cut it to 18 Mbps, and the purpose of pair bonding, which is not widely deployed, is to preserve the 25 Mbps further.  The amount they advertise for their high speed max turbo is 24 Mbps if you are within 3000 feet.  The only place one can use lossy compression is TV and Phone.  So that would mean that 4 TV streams, of which 2 could be HD, and two phones make it on the remaining 1 Mbps.  That's 4 lbs. of stuff in a 2 lb. box.  The compression ratios are necessarily high for either cable or twisted pair compared to Blue-ray etc.  Compression affects the quality and brightness.  Compromises are made with the hope that the customer sees a better value proposition in their product.  It's more likely that customers are seeing the necessary compromises and determining which one they want to go with than it is that AT&T is inept at deploying the hardware technology necessary to present their product in the best possible light. 

I was referred to browse these forums by the salesmen to learn about the trade-offs.  I apprecieated his candor, and that of the engineer who he conferenced in.  It's that type candor, 30 days of like it or leave it, and no contract that talked me into giving it a whirl.  In contrast, try to find out what anything costs on the Comcast site past the promotion period.  I didn't find it.  Hint: It's not in the terms and conditions. :smileyvery-happy:  Moreover, they have recently implemented DNS Hijacking for which I had to download a browser plug-in to defeat.

Thanks for the reply!

Regarding the bolded statement, it isn't possible to put 4 TV streams and phone, into the remaining 1mbs.  ATT doesn't "guarantee" you 24Mbs of internet.  The actual download rate you get is HIGHLY dependent on the TV streams in use at any particular time.

 

Assuming 2 HD streams in use at 6mbs (might be a bit high based on ATT continually trying to compress the HD stream more and more), and 2SD streams at say 2.5mbs, that is 17mbs of dedicated bandwidth for TV.  Phone takes up a minimal amount, so ignore that, and you are left with approx. 8Mbs of internet bandwidth.  These numbers may vary some, but you get the picture. 

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

41 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 11:15:15 AM
0
(0)
Teacher

It is NOT "only darker" on HDMI. It is darker on component and S-Video, too. It is simply not acceptable. You can screw around with your picture settings all you want, but you cannot get it back to what it should be in terms of darkness w/o screwing up something else.

 

I thought Charter had problems, but theirs are nothing as compared with this major screw-up by ATT.

 

My sets: 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma, 50" Pioneer 768p plasma, 22" Dynex LCD. The picture is too dark on all of them and the input matters not at all. If this is a result of some under-sampling that ATT is doing due to limited band width, then there is no way a consumer will fix it at their end.

 

Back to Charter I go after 2 days.

 

 

It is NOT "only darker" on HDMI. It is darker on component and S-Video, too. It is simply not acceptable. You can screw around with your picture settings all you want, but you cannot get it back to what it should be in terms of darkness w/o screwing up something else.

 

I thought Charter had problems, but theirs are nothing as compared with this major screw-up by ATT.

 

My sets: 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma, 50" Pioneer 768p plasma, 22" Dynex LCD. The picture is too dark on all of them and the input matters not at all. If this is a result of some under-sampling that ATT is doing due to limited band width, then there is no way a consumer will fix it at their end.

 

Back to Charter I go after 2 days.

 

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

42 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 12:15:18 PM
0
(0)
Expert

nopcbs wrote:

 

It is NOT "only darker" on HDMI. It is darker on component and S-Video, too. It is simply not acceptable. You can screw around with your picture settings all you want, but you cannot get it back to what it should be in terms of darkness w/o screwing up something else.


 

That's not true at all.  The component outputs of the U-Verse STB are in-spec.  All TVs will require minor adjustments for the specific input and specific piece of equipment when the input is analog (component, composite, S-video).  That is the nature of analog transport -- no two pieces of equipment are exactly the same.  That's why the picture adjustment controls are there to begin with.

 

The U-Verse STB's output, combined with your picture controls on your TV, will yield a perfectly in-spec picture as far as black level, white level, and color goes.  Click the first link in  my signature below for the calibration procedure.

 


nopcbs wrote:

 

It is NOT "only darker" on HDMI. It is darker on component and S-Video, too. It is simply not acceptable. You can screw around with your picture settings all you want, but you cannot get it back to what it should be in terms of darkness w/o screwing up something else.


 

That's not true at all.  The component outputs of the U-Verse STB are in-spec.  All TVs will require minor adjustments for the specific input and specific piece of equipment when the input is analog (component, composite, S-video).  That is the nature of analog transport -- no two pieces of equipment are exactly the same.  That's why the picture adjustment controls are there to begin with.

 

The U-Verse STB's output, combined with your picture controls on your TV, will yield a perfectly in-spec picture as far as black level, white level, and color goes.  Click the first link in  my signature below for the calibration procedure.

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

43 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 1:56:08 PM
0
(0)
Tutor

nopcbs wrote:

It is NOT "only darker" on HDMI. It is darker on component and S-Video, too. It is simply not acceptable. You can screw around with your picture settings all you want, but you cannot get it back to what it should be in terms of darkness w/o screwing up something else. If this is a result of some under-sampling that ATT is doing due to limited band width, then there is no way a consumer will fix it at their end...Back to Charter I go after 2 days.


I appreciate your candid observations about the HD video.  Under-sampling would certainly be the most technically logical explanation for the consistently darker picture.  Nobody can argue with you that even if you brighten it up, you can't put back what was lost from higher compression levels.  (under-sampling) 

While TV picture is important, the reason I put the brakes on U-verse was for internet upload speeds.  People should not use me for an example here because I'm one of few who need better upload speeds because of my job of maintaining dedicated internet servers.  I also couldn't help but notice that U-verse consistently underperforms the published speeds while my current provider consistently beats the published speeds, sometimes by as much as 350%.  With so much to like about U-verse, this is not where I expected my analysis to end up. 

In areas where AT&T has FTTH, they would likely be able to take care of my internet requirements.  It would probably require a commitment to FTTH for 100% of their user base, as there is with FIOS and DOCSIS 3.0, for AT&T to remedy any HDTV under-sampling shortcomings.  I haven't heard of any such commitment.  There are no plans for FIOS in my area.  Waiting for DOCSIS 3.0, which will be available to me by year-end, appears to be my best course of action.

Thanks!


nopcbs wrote:

It is NOT "only darker" on HDMI. It is darker on component and S-Video, too. It is simply not acceptable. You can screw around with your picture settings all you want, but you cannot get it back to what it should be in terms of darkness w/o screwing up something else. If this is a result of some under-sampling that ATT is doing due to limited band width, then there is no way a consumer will fix it at their end...Back to Charter I go after 2 days.


I appreciate your candid observations about the HD video.  Under-sampling would certainly be the most technically logical explanation for the consistently darker picture.  Nobody can argue with you that even if you brighten it up, you can't put back what was lost from higher compression levels.  (under-sampling) 

While TV picture is important, the reason I put the brakes on U-verse was for internet upload speeds.  People should not use me for an example here because I'm one of few who need better upload speeds because of my job of maintaining dedicated internet servers.  I also couldn't help but notice that U-verse consistently underperforms the published speeds while my current provider consistently beats the published speeds, sometimes by as much as 350%.  With so much to like about U-verse, this is not where I expected my analysis to end up. 

In areas where AT&T has FTTH, they would likely be able to take care of my internet requirements.  It would probably require a commitment to FTTH for 100% of their user base, as there is with FIOS and DOCSIS 3.0, for AT&T to remedy any HDTV under-sampling shortcomings.  I haven't heard of any such commitment.  There are no plans for FIOS in my area.  Waiting for DOCSIS 3.0, which will be available to me by year-end, appears to be my best course of action.

Thanks!

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

44 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 4:03:33 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

I signed up for their 5 Mb service which is closest in price ($35) to Charter's 5 Mb service ($30). Problem is that when I speed test both I get just under 5 Mb for Uverse and 7-13 Mb for Charter Usually it's better than 10 Mb. I just tested it (Sunday evening when usage should be high) and I am getting 11-13 Mb, repeatedly.

 

Duh! Some choice, no?

 

- nopcbs.

I signed up for their 5 Mb service which is closest in price ($35) to Charter's 5 Mb service ($30). Problem is that when I speed test both I get just under 5 Mb for Uverse and 7-13 Mb for Charter Usually it's better than 10 Mb. I just tested it (Sunday evening when usage should be high) and I am getting 11-13 Mb, repeatedly.

 

Duh! Some choice, no?

 

- nopcbs.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

45 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 4:08:37 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

Listen, I just did the test with my own Mk I human eyeball and HDMI, component, and S-Video cables in use. I just switch among them. There is NO difference in picture darkness. Zip. Nada. I dragged over the Charter HD-DVD cable box and ran the Charter box and the ATT box through an HDMI switch into the sets HDMP input. Was watching A-Men in HD on both systems.

 

The ATT Uverse picture is darker. No question. I could live with it, but my wife hates it. No features in dark parts of image. I noticed it imediately and she did, too, indepenedently.

 

Screwing around with brightness will not fix this, you just mess up the contrast and color when you do that.

Listen, I just did the test with my own Mk I human eyeball and HDMI, component, and S-Video cables in use. I just switch among them. There is NO difference in picture darkness. Zip. Nada. I dragged over the Charter HD-DVD cable box and ran the Charter box and the ATT box through an HDMI switch into the sets HDMP input. Was watching A-Men in HD on both systems.

 

The ATT Uverse picture is darker. No question. I could live with it, but my wife hates it. No features in dark parts of image. I noticed it imediately and she did, too, indepenedently.

 

Screwing around with brightness will not fix this, you just mess up the contrast and color when you do that.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

46 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 4:15:00 PM
0
(0)
Expert

The human eye is no match for true calibration patterns.  It may in fact be true that at this time, you could not see a difference between HDMI and component, but the difference is there, and until you follow a calibration pattern and procedure, you will not know for sure.  Your equipment (TV, set-up, picture settings) are unique, and need to be specifically calibrated for you.

 

The black levels on the component output of the U-Verse box are not crushed.  (They are on HDMI for most TVs, although this can be fixed by some TVs using the RGB range setting.)

 

Please click the first link in my signature and perform the calibration and you will get proper black levels on the component connection, guaranteed.

 

If, on the other hand, you wish to switch providers, that is your choice.  But do so for actual reasons, not supposed ones that you derived from your eyes instead of a calibration pattern.

 

The human eye is no match for true calibration patterns.  It may in fact be true that at this time, you could not see a difference between HDMI and component, but the difference is there, and until you follow a calibration pattern and procedure, you will not know for sure.  Your equipment (TV, set-up, picture settings) are unique, and need to be specifically calibrated for you.

 

The black levels on the component output of the U-Verse box are not crushed.  (They are on HDMI for most TVs, although this can be fixed by some TVs using the RGB range setting.)

 

Please click the first link in my signature and perform the calibration and you will get proper black levels on the component connection, guaranteed.

 

If, on the other hand, you wish to switch providers, that is your choice.  But do so for actual reasons, not supposed ones that you derived from your eyes instead of a calibration pattern.

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

47 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 4:58:42 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

OK, just FYI. I have already calibrated by 58" Panasonic plasma with the Spears & Munsil BlueRay evaluation and TV setup disk. This disk is widely regarded as the best you can get for do-it-yourself HD-TV calibration.

 

Having said that, the picture from Charter looks good and the picture from ATT UVerse looks good, but dark with little detail in very dark image areas. Overall, the picture looks dark and unpleasant compared with Charter's.

 

Now, is it your contention that I should bag the S&M derived settings? Then I can enjoy an uncalibrated, overly bright picture when I watch anything other than ATT UVerse.

 

I think there is something wrong with that idea.

 

 

OK, just FYI. I have already calibrated by 58" Panasonic plasma with the Spears & Munsil BlueRay evaluation and TV setup disk. This disk is widely regarded as the best you can get for do-it-yourself HD-TV calibration.

 

Having said that, the picture from Charter looks good and the picture from ATT UVerse looks good, but dark with little detail in very dark image areas. Overall, the picture looks dark and unpleasant compared with Charter's.

 

Now, is it your contention that I should bag the S&M derived settings? Then I can enjoy an uncalibrated, overly bright picture when I watch anything other than ATT UVerse.

 

I think there is something wrong with that idea.

 

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

48 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 7:24:41 PM
0
(0)
Expert

No, you shouldn't remove those settings from the S&M BD.  Those settings are correct for the Blu-Ray player, and for that input on your TV.

 

Most modern TVs will save the picture settings on a per-input basis.  Since your U-Verse STB is going into a different input on the TV (I assume the U-Verse STB is on component and your Blu-Ray player is on HDMI), you should be able to independently adjust the picture settings for the component input that U-Verse is on.

 

This is why my calibration procedure has you use the HD Net test patterns.  These allow you to check and adjust using all the same U-Verse devices, cables, and inputs that you will use during ordinary viewing.  If you tried to use a calibration disc, you would have to plug that DVD or Blu-Ray player into the same input that your U-Verse STB would be plugged into, and even then the calibration wouldn't be valid because the U-Verse STB wasn't involved during the calibration procedure.

 

Once you have the U-Verse input independently adjusted, you will now have proper adjustments for all devices/inputs on the TV.  Granted, the S&M disc has more adjustments and is probably more accurate than what you get from the HD Net test pattern, but it is necessary to use the HD Net test patterns so that the entire input chain is identical to what will be used during viewing.

 

No, you shouldn't remove those settings from the S&M BD.  Those settings are correct for the Blu-Ray player, and for that input on your TV.

 

Most modern TVs will save the picture settings on a per-input basis.  Since your U-Verse STB is going into a different input on the TV (I assume the U-Verse STB is on component and your Blu-Ray player is on HDMI), you should be able to independently adjust the picture settings for the component input that U-Verse is on.

 

This is why my calibration procedure has you use the HD Net test patterns.  These allow you to check and adjust using all the same U-Verse devices, cables, and inputs that you will use during ordinary viewing.  If you tried to use a calibration disc, you would have to plug that DVD or Blu-Ray player into the same input that your U-Verse STB would be plugged into, and even then the calibration wouldn't be valid because the U-Verse STB wasn't involved during the calibration procedure.

 

Once you have the U-Verse input independently adjusted, you will now have proper adjustments for all devices/inputs on the TV.  Granted, the S&M disc has more adjustments and is probably more accurate than what you get from the HD Net test pattern, but it is necessary to use the HD Net test patterns so that the entire input chain is identical to what will be used during viewing.

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

49 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 7:48:32 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master
I hesitate to jump in here because I know what will come.  BUT.....for the life of me I cannot see what all the fuss is about a so-called darker picture.  We came from Comcast to U-verse and, after slight readjustment, our picture is gorgeous.  Bright, colorful, sharp, with excellent range from white to black.   Good detail in dark areas and proper grays.  No blooming in the highlights.  In other words.....a natural looking image.  The only evidence we've been able to observe that occasionally bothers me is the now-well-known mottling of the grass on the fields of the HD football games.  But, even that is not always noticeable.  As a serious photographer for the past 60 years I know what I want to see in an image and what I see from U-verse in combination with our Sony 55" SXRD is just great.  I feel sympathy for those who are not receiving the same good service that we are.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. .......Margaret Thatcher
I hesitate to jump in here because I know what will come.  BUT.....for the life of me I cannot see what all the fuss is about a so-called darker picture.  We came from Comcast to U-verse and, after slight readjustment, our picture is gorgeous.  Bright, colorful, sharp, with excellent range from white to black.   Good detail in dark areas and proper grays.  No blooming in the highlights.  In other words.....a natural looking image.  The only evidence we've been able to observe that occasionally bothers me is the now-well-known mottling of the grass on the fields of the HD football games.  But, even that is not always noticeable.  As a serious photographer for the past 60 years I know what I want to see in an image and what I see from U-verse in combination with our Sony 55" SXRD is just great.  I feel sympathy for those who are not receiving the same good service that we are.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. .......Margaret Thatcher
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

50 of 68 (949 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 7:49:52 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

Actually, in the interests of simplicity, I feed all of my HDMI-capable devices (cable box, HD-DVD player, Oppo DVD, BlueRay/Netflix box) into a HDMI switch that feeds my HT receiver that feeds the TV picture by HDMI, for the 58" Panasonic. The other two sets are simpler set-ups.

 

I suppose I could use component cables to feed the ATT box to the TV, but that means running an optical line to the receiver, too, and I am not much into doing that. 

 

I am not so sure that what you say about all the inputs having unique/independent picture settings. You may be correct, but I suspect not.

 

In any case, this is a screw-up at ATT's end and I am not thrilled about having to clean up their mess. I have already played around with contrats and brightness and have a hard time getting brightness up w/o screwing up something else. It is a darned nuisance to have to do this.

 

I intend to call ATT service tomorrow to see if they can fix this via an internal adjustent of their box. I read in a internet post that this MAY be possable. Sure hope so.

 

In any case, the overall picture quality of ATT SD is no better than Charter's and the same is true of Charter HD. In fact, Charter HD may be slightly better. I think the problem is that ATT uses twisted pair going into your house from their fiber end-point and twisted pair does not have a lot of bandwidth, certainly far less than coax that Carter uses.

 

 

 

 

Actually, in the interests of simplicity, I feed all of my HDMI-capable devices (cable box, HD-DVD player, Oppo DVD, BlueRay/Netflix box) into a HDMI switch that feeds my HT receiver that feeds the TV picture by HDMI, for the 58" Panasonic. The other two sets are simpler set-ups.

 

I suppose I could use component cables to feed the ATT box to the TV, but that means running an optical line to the receiver, too, and I am not much into doing that. 

 

I am not so sure that what you say about all the inputs having unique/independent picture settings. You may be correct, but I suspect not.

 

In any case, this is a screw-up at ATT's end and I am not thrilled about having to clean up their mess. I have already played around with contrats and brightness and have a hard time getting brightness up w/o screwing up something else. It is a darned nuisance to have to do this.

 

I intend to call ATT service tomorrow to see if they can fix this via an internal adjustent of their box. I read in a internet post that this MAY be possable. Sure hope so.

 

In any case, the overall picture quality of ATT SD is no better than Charter's and the same is true of Charter HD. In fact, Charter HD may be slightly better. I think the problem is that ATT uses twisted pair going into your house from their fiber end-point and twisted pair does not have a lot of bandwidth, certainly far less than coax that Carter uses.

 

 

 

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

51 of 68 (954 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 7:56:03 PM
0
(0)
Teacher

Sitting on my kitchen table is a 22" HD TV with an HDMI switch box in front of it. The ouput of the switch box goes to the TV. The two inputs on the switch host  an ATT TV box and a Charter TV box. I have tuned the same HD and SD programs through both boxes. The Charter picture looks bright and natural. The ATT picture looks much darker and, as a result, murky. It is NOT a good picture.

 

Screwing around with brightness and contrast cannot get you to a picture equally good to that of the Charter box. Further, you should NOT have to do that. If I feed a DVD or a BluRay to the TV, I do not have to change the picture setting from what they are for the Charter box (same input used). The pictures look fine w/o tweaking.

 

Why should ATT make you tweak your picture from what works with everything else to get a non-over-dark image?

 

- nopcbs

 

 

Sitting on my kitchen table is a 22" HD TV with an HDMI switch box in front of it. The ouput of the switch box goes to the TV. The two inputs on the switch host  an ATT TV box and a Charter TV box. I have tuned the same HD and SD programs through both boxes. The Charter picture looks bright and natural. The ATT picture looks much darker and, as a result, murky. It is NOT a good picture.

 

Screwing around with brightness and contrast cannot get you to a picture equally good to that of the Charter box. Further, you should NOT have to do that. If I feed a DVD or a BluRay to the TV, I do not have to change the picture setting from what they are for the Charter box (same input used). The pictures look fine w/o tweaking.

 

Why should ATT make you tweak your picture from what works with everything else to get a non-over-dark image?

 

- nopcbs

 

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

52 of 68 (954 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 7:57:12 PM
0
(0)
Teacher
Oh, and the fuss is about ATT puting out an over-dark picture that people have to band-aid around.
Oh, and the fuss is about ATT puting out an over-dark picture that people have to band-aid around.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

53 of 68 (955 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 8:34:26 PM
0
(0)
Expert

nopcbs wrote:

Actually, in the interests of simplicity, I feed all of my HDMI-capable devices (cable box, HD-DVD player, Oppo DVD, BlueRay/Netflix box) into a HDMI switch that feeds my HT receiver that feeds the TV picture by HDMI, for the 58" Panasonic. The other two sets are simpler set-ups.

 

I suppose I could use component cables to feed the ATT box to the TV, but that means running an optical line to the receiver, too, and I am not much into doing that. 

 

I am not so sure that what you say about all the inputs having unique/independent picture settings. You may be correct, but I suspect not.

 

In any case, this is a screw-up at ATT's end and I am not thrilled about having to clean up their mess. I have already played around with contrats and brightness and have a hard time getting brightness up w/o screwing up something else. It is a darned nuisance to have to do this.

 

I intend to call ATT service tomorrow to see if they can fix this via an internal adjustent of their box. I read in a internet post that this MAY be possable. Sure hope so.

 

In any case, the overall picture quality of ATT SD is no better than Charter's and the same is true of Charter HD. In fact, Charter HD may be slightly better. I think the problem is that ATT uses twisted pair going into your house from their fiber end-point and twisted pair does not have a lot of bandwidth, certainly far less than coax that Carter uses.


 

Well, if you're using HDMI from the AT&T U-Verse STB, then you're very correct, you'll never be able to calibrate the picture properly for it.  The reason why is explained in the HDTV calibration post (1st link in my signature).

 

The error is defintiely in the U-Verse STB, unfortunately.  I know of no way to work around the problem other than using component cables, or using an RGB range adjustment if your TV has one.

 

Yes, I am correct about most modern TVs retaining picture settings on a per-input basis.  Your Panasonic should do this.  Please try it.

 

You shouldn't feel bad about using component + optical rather than HDMI.  The digital audio you get is the same, since U-Verse's audio is a maximum of 384 kbps Dolby Digital (no high-end audio codecs on the U-Verse STB).

 


nopcbs wrote:

Actually, in the interests of simplicity, I feed all of my HDMI-capable devices (cable box, HD-DVD player, Oppo DVD, BlueRay/Netflix box) into a HDMI switch that feeds my HT receiver that feeds the TV picture by HDMI, for the 58" Panasonic. The other two sets are simpler set-ups.

 

I suppose I could use component cables to feed the ATT box to the TV, but that means running an optical line to the receiver, too, and I am not much into doing that. 

 

I am not so sure that what you say about all the inputs having unique/independent picture settings. You may be correct, but I suspect not.

 

In any case, this is a screw-up at ATT's end and I am not thrilled about having to clean up their mess. I have already played around with contrats and brightness and have a hard time getting brightness up w/o screwing up something else. It is a darned nuisance to have to do this.

 

I intend to call ATT service tomorrow to see if they can fix this via an internal adjustent of their box. I read in a internet post that this MAY be possable. Sure hope so.

 

In any case, the overall picture quality of ATT SD is no better than Charter's and the same is true of Charter HD. In fact, Charter HD may be slightly better. I think the problem is that ATT uses twisted pair going into your house from their fiber end-point and twisted pair does not have a lot of bandwidth, certainly far less than coax that Carter uses.


 

Well, if you're using HDMI from the AT&T U-Verse STB, then you're very correct, you'll never be able to calibrate the picture properly for it.  The reason why is explained in the HDTV calibration post (1st link in my signature).

 

The error is defintiely in the U-Verse STB, unfortunately.  I know of no way to work around the problem other than using component cables, or using an RGB range adjustment if your TV has one.

 

Yes, I am correct about most modern TVs retaining picture settings on a per-input basis.  Your Panasonic should do this.  Please try it.

 

You shouldn't feel bad about using component + optical rather than HDMI.  The digital audio you get is the same, since U-Verse's audio is a maximum of 384 kbps Dolby Digital (no high-end audio codecs on the U-Verse STB).

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

54 of 68 (956 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 8:37:24 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

nopcbs wrote:

Actually, in the interests of simplicity, I feed all of my HDMI-capable devices (cable box, HD-DVD player, Oppo DVD, BlueRay/Netflix box) into a HDMI switch that feeds my HT receiver that feeds the TV picture by HDMI, for the 58" Panasonic. The other two sets are simpler set-ups.

 

I suppose I could use component cables to feed the ATT box to the TV, but that means running an optical line to the receiver, too, and I am not much into doing that. 

 

I am not so sure that what you say about all the inputs having unique/independent picture settings. You may be correct, but I suspect not.

 

In any case, this is a screw-up at ATT's end and I am not thrilled about having to clean up their mess. I have already played around with contrats and brightness and have a hard time getting brightness up w/o screwing up something else. It is a darned nuisance to have to do this.

 

I intend to call ATT service tomorrow to see if they can fix this via an internal adjustent of their box. I read in a internet post that this MAY be possable. Sure hope so.

 

In any case, the overall picture quality of ATT SD is no better than Charter's and the same is true of Charter HD. In fact, Charter HD may be slightly better. I think the problem is that ATT uses twisted pair going into your house from their fiber end-point and twisted pair does not have a lot of bandwidth, certainly far less than coax that Carter uses.

 

 

 

 


I could almost bet that your Panasonic has different picture settings for each input as my Panasonic does. :smileywink:

 

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

nopcbs wrote:

Actually, in the interests of simplicity, I feed all of my HDMI-capable devices (cable box, HD-DVD player, Oppo DVD, BlueRay/Netflix box) into a HDMI switch that feeds my HT receiver that feeds the TV picture by HDMI, for the 58" Panasonic. The other two sets are simpler set-ups.

 

I suppose I could use component cables to feed the ATT box to the TV, but that means running an optical line to the receiver, too, and I am not much into doing that. 

 

I am not so sure that what you say about all the inputs having unique/independent picture settings. You may be correct, but I suspect not.

 

In any case, this is a screw-up at ATT's end and I am not thrilled about having to clean up their mess. I have already played around with contrats and brightness and have a hard time getting brightness up w/o screwing up something else. It is a darned nuisance to have to do this.

 

I intend to call ATT service tomorrow to see if they can fix this via an internal adjustent of their box. I read in a internet post that this MAY be possable. Sure hope so.

 

In any case, the overall picture quality of ATT SD is no better than Charter's and the same is true of Charter HD. In fact, Charter HD may be slightly better. I think the problem is that ATT uses twisted pair going into your house from their fiber end-point and twisted pair does not have a lot of bandwidth, certainly far less than coax that Carter uses.

 

 

 

 


I could almost bet that your Panasonic has different picture settings for each input as my Panasonic does. :smileywink:

 

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
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

55 of 68 (956 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 8:40:25 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Expert

nopcbs wrote:
Oh, and the fuss is about ATT puting out an over-dark picture that people have to band-aid around.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=22725#M22725 :smileywink:

 

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

nopcbs wrote:
Oh, and the fuss is about ATT puting out an over-dark picture that people have to band-aid around.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=22725#M22725 :smileywink:

 

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
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

56 of 68 (956 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 8:47:52 PM
0
(0)
ACE - Master

mibrnsurg wrote:

nopcbs wrote:
Oh, and the fuss is about ATT puting out an over-dark picture that people have to band-aid around.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=22725#M22725 :smileywink:

 

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

 

Thanks for linking that post, Chris.  I'd almost forgotten about that one.  It is good info.

 

Well perhaps some folks need bandaids on their particular TV models.   But not here.   Our picture is great.:smileyhappy:

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. .......Margaret Thatcher

mibrnsurg wrote:

nopcbs wrote:
Oh, and the fuss is about ATT puting out an over-dark picture that people have to band-aid around.

http://utalk.att.com/utalk/board/message?board.id=Uverse_TV_Equipment&message.id=22725#M22725 :smileywink:

 

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

 

Thanks for linking that post, Chris.  I'd almost forgotten about that one.  It is good info.

 

Well perhaps some folks need bandaids on their particular TV models.   But not here.   Our picture is great.:smileyhappy:

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money. .......Margaret Thatcher
*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

57 of 68 (956 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 10, 2010 8:51:14 PM
0
(0)
Expert
Brings a chuckle here as son said he hopes his TV doesn't die because he's spent too much time getting the settings right!
Brings a chuckle here as son said he hopes his TV doesn't die because he's spent too much time getting the settings right!

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

58 of 68 (956 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 14, 2010 4:43:55 AM
0
(0)
Teacher

I stand corrected on the point about about non-HDMI picture quality w/ATT UVerse being as dark as HDMI picture quality. On closer examination, I find that you are correct. The ATT UVerse STB HDMI picture is very dim with little in the way of features visible on near-black parts of the picture (HD and SD) visible. This REALLY outraged my wife. It is MUCH worse that standard cable (Charter). You can play with picture settings, but you cannot get it right, fix one thing, screw up another.

 

ATT UVerse STB component/S-Video and probably coax picture quality is much better in terms of the darkness issue. The picture is very, very close to that of Charter cable for both HD and SD. It may well be equal. Overall PQ is near-identical or identical to Charter cable...which means quite good...using component or S-Video. (In all comparisons, the Charter box is feeding out HDMI to the same TV. Charter knows how to do HDMI even if ATT does not. Charter's problems lie elsewhere.)

 

As a side-light, I have found little difference in PQ when feeding COAX, component, S-Video, and HDMI) from my Charter box into our 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma. Surprising, as I thought COAX, in particular, should be worse. It's not...all are fine on SD and HD...this is not to say SD is beautiful, it is just no worse than through Charter HDMI.

 

I condemn ATT UVerse for screwing up the HDMI signal, but at least the workarounds you offer work and, while annoying, are not horrible. And, yes, each input retains its own picture settings...you were correct on that as well.

 

Amazingingly, my ATT UVerse install person, who seemed very knowledgable otherwise, knew nothing of this issue!

 

My apologies for doubting you about the component cable option.

 

- nopcbs 

I stand corrected on the point about about non-HDMI picture quality w/ATT UVerse being as dark as HDMI picture quality. On closer examination, I find that you are correct. The ATT UVerse STB HDMI picture is very dim with little in the way of features visible on near-black parts of the picture (HD and SD) visible. This REALLY outraged my wife. It is MUCH worse that standard cable (Charter). You can play with picture settings, but you cannot get it right, fix one thing, screw up another.

 

ATT UVerse STB component/S-Video and probably coax picture quality is much better in terms of the darkness issue. The picture is very, very close to that of Charter cable for both HD and SD. It may well be equal. Overall PQ is near-identical or identical to Charter cable...which means quite good...using component or S-Video. (In all comparisons, the Charter box is feeding out HDMI to the same TV. Charter knows how to do HDMI even if ATT does not. Charter's problems lie elsewhere.)

 

As a side-light, I have found little difference in PQ when feeding COAX, component, S-Video, and HDMI) from my Charter box into our 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma. Surprising, as I thought COAX, in particular, should be worse. It's not...all are fine on SD and HD...this is not to say SD is beautiful, it is just no worse than through Charter HDMI.

 

I condemn ATT UVerse for screwing up the HDMI signal, but at least the workarounds you offer work and, while annoying, are not horrible. And, yes, each input retains its own picture settings...you were correct on that as well.

 

Amazingingly, my ATT UVerse install person, who seemed very knowledgable otherwise, knew nothing of this issue!

 

My apologies for doubting you about the component cable option.

 

- nopcbs 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

59 of 68 (956 Views)
0
(0)
  • Rate this reply
View profile
Jan 14, 2010 9:40:50 AM
0
(0)
Expert

nopcbs wrote:

 

Amazingingly, my ATT UVerse install person, who seemed very knowledgable otherwise, knew nothing of this issue!


 

Unfortunately, the techs are paid to learn how to install at that's all.  Most of them are not familiar with the nuances and idiosyncracies of the hardware.

 

But glad you're up and running, and glad the picture quality turned out to be pretty good! :smileyhappy:

 


nopcbs wrote:

 

Amazingingly, my ATT UVerse install person, who seemed very knowledgable otherwise, knew nothing of this issue!


 

Unfortunately, the techs are paid to learn how to install at that's all.  Most of them are not familiar with the nuances and idiosyncracies of the hardware.

 

But glad you're up and running, and glad the picture quality turned out to be pretty good! :smileyhappy:

 

Re: Darker picture on U-verse vs. Comcast

60 of 68 (956 Views)
Share this post
Share this post