Hello, when I was told Fibe had a 10x better picture quality than Rogers I switched. However, I find that hard to believe. I've tried changing my TV settings as much as I can to get this "better" picture.
Does anyone have any ideas at what I could try to make this switch to Fibe from Rogers worth it?
"10x" is a stretch, but I continue to be impressed with PQ of Fibe vs. Rogers. Suggest you use 720 as STB resolution (that's Bell's native output) and let your TV do any upconversion to 1080, then play around with your TV settings.
"57" will probably have more suggestions.
Bell sends their signals to the Fibe STB as 720P. This picture is typically "softer" than a 1080i picture, which Rogers sends for most channels. The "crisper" picture from Rogers is preferred by some, while others prefer the "softer" picture from Bell, which is less likely to show artifacts. It all comes down to personal preference, however, as mentioned above, whomever told you Bell is "better" did not tell the truth. For more, see the following link:
I guess for people who have switched from Rogers analog service, picture quality could be 10 times better.
I have switched from Bell satellite and in my opinion picture quality on satellite was better but I still prefer Bell fibe TV as there are a lot more features that are not available on bell satellite and the picture quality is still acceptable to me.
Rogers digital cable is definitely much better than Bell Satellite, but I don't know about Bell Fibe. I have saw technical specs for Rogers and they stream almost all their HD channels at a standard 15Mbps - MPEG2 transmission rate.
For comparison, Bell Satellite average HD transmission rates clock in at 4Mbps - 6Mbps but they encode most HD channels with MPEG4 (equivalent to 8Mbps - 12Mbps in MPEG2).
For comparison, OTA HD is streamed at around 17Mbps /MPEG2.
Don't get me wrong, Rogers HD picture quality is OK however Bell Fibe blows Rogers out out of the park with stunning, crisp, picture quality; not to mention, how fast you can switch from channel to channel. Now, I'm not that far away from the Bell box which makes a big difference!
Don't get me wrong, Rogers HD picture quality is OK however Bell Fibe blows Rogers out out of the park with stunning, crisp, picture quality;
In your opinion. In my opinion, having optimized many home theatres with Bell or Rogers, the difference is not significant and if anything the picture is "crisper" on Rogers, with a softer picture on Bell Fibe. As I mentioned earlier, some people like the Fibe picture. I've also optimized systems for many people who have switched from Rogers to Bell and although they may prefer the Bell user experience, they miss the excellent picture they had with Rogers, because, frankly, 720P is not as good as 1080i, especially for the channels that broadcast in 1080i. The extra conversion caused by Bell to 720P for 1080i channels can in no way be healthy for picture quality.
Which is better? A 1080i picture converted by a TV to 1080P (a very easy upconversion), or a 1080i picture down-converted by Bell to 720P, then up-converted by your STB or TV to 1080P (a "more difficult" conversion). I say the answer is clear.
Originally Posted by 57 Which is better? A 1080i picture converted by a TV to 1080P (a very easy upconversion), or a 1080i picture down-converted by Bell to 720P, then up-converted by your STB or TV to 1080P (a "more difficult" conversion). I say the answer is clear.
Yes, it's personal preference. Bell's PQ is softer, but I prefer that over the rampant macroblocking on Rogers. Add in Bell's much more functional guide and menu system and it's a very easy slam dunk for me. It's great to have competition though.