# Any rumors of Dish going to H.265/HEVC ??



## RVRambler (Dec 5, 2004)

Needs more h/w processing, chipsets give you this, but you get at least a 2-4x smaller bandwidth needed for same quality.

Mostly H.265 is connected to 4kHD but it is backward compatible to 1080p or 720p, it is the FUTURE encoder.

Lets face it, Dish does NOT have the highest quality signals overall, especially for locals. Even in the SF, Calif area the signals surely could be better, pause a local channel, you can sometimes see lots of encoding artifacts, mostly due to the noise of source, but not always !! 

Even live NFL game can be VERY ugly looking, 2 types of blocking !!  And of course how many channels have no more resolution than a DVD, quite a few, not a DIsh issue?! Hey even golfing can have ugly looking IQ, its just a small little ball !!!!!

My experience with H.265/x265, the Image quality is actually BETTER looking AND is at least 1/2 the size (files), like all encoding you can dance toward small or image quality.

And since IMO, Dish really is suffering & always seemed to suffer bandwidth on sats issues (limiting the bits to make images better), this would double/triple the 'capacity'. Of course millions of rcvrs to replace/upgrade so it would take years but lots of benefits to all, need to start, at least put the decoding chipsets in the new recvrs!!!!

PS: Charley E. was originally very against going to mp4/H.264, but eventually he comprehended the benefits and the bandwidth push from all the new HD channels, slow (Charley only sees the money/costs primarily - biz head not tech head) but he finally got there, maybe again ???


----------



## RBA (Apr 14, 2013)

Are you starting a RUMOR? There is always a technology out there a good businessman needs to make the correct decision about adopting it.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know if any of the current Dish hardware could handle this newer encoding/decoding. IF any could, it would have to be their Hopper w/Sling... but I don't know if that does, and even if it does it is WAY in the minority of active receivers out there.

Dish still hasn't migrated both arcs off MPEG2... I don't see how they could migrate everyone to another newer scheme any time soon even if they wanted to do so.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 15, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Dish still hasn't migrated both arcs off MPEG2... I don't see how they could migrate everyone to another newer scheme any time soon even if they wanted to do so.


The speed with which technology advances can be devastating - who would of ever thought that Kodak would be in the situation that it is in today. Watching the transition to IP streaming will be interesting.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Kodak I kind of get... they made some missteps and their primary profit model was flawed in a way that no one saw coming really.

For the longest time, Kodak made its profit mostly from film sales. They would give you a camera to be able to sell you film. Film was a big profit for them because they had access to a lot of silver. My father worked for them for many years so I know a little of the inner workings before the "fall."

So... the first blow was cheaper film... Fuji and some others started making good film and selling it cheaper than Kodak, cutting into their profits... that's how it started. The move to digital helped finish that off, as Kodak was never really in a position to compete with cameras in large part because they had never tried! It was all about the film for them.

They made some other missteps... like doubling down on photocopying when IBM wanted to get out of that business in the late 1980s... Kodak bought that and all the IBMers to get access to those customers... but the thing is, the photocopying market was just about to implode with the advent of quality home printers and scanners where people could afford to do this stuff at home... There is still a place for bulk photocopying, but it isn't like it was for a while there where companies were popping up from nowhere and large companies were getting multiple machines. The machines themselves were expensive AND Kodak made a lot from the service contracts too.

Anyway... Kodak was kind of in a place where there wasn't a lot of room for them to move without becoming an entirely different company... and that wasn't in their wheelhouse... so the fall of Kodak was kind of inevitable. Sometimes companies just are out-evolved by people and that market isn't needed anymore.

Think pre-refrigeration and the ice industry... Home refrigeration KILLED that stone cold... and if you were in the ice-business, what else were you going to do that someone else wasn't already doing better?


----------

