# HD compression



## hoopsbwc34

Just some interesting stats on Dish's HD compression: 

The 922 let's you see the individual show file size. I recorded Lost (2hrs 38min) on my OTA channel and my local Dish channel. The OTA was just over 16GB, the Dish recording just over 4GB.


----------



## HobbyTalk

It also depends on your local OTA station. Some stations allow much more bandwidth for their HD channels while others offer a number of sub-channels.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It might be worth mentioning that I believe the 922 file size calculation is suspect.

I have seen, for instance, a 30 minute program recorded OTA show as taking 12 GB! But I don't believe that it truly is taking that much space.

I think sometimes the 922 is glitching on its calculation/reporting mechanism... but no way to track it since most of the time it seems ok.


----------



## ehren

your OTA is mpeg 2 and Dish HD is mpeg 4, of course it's gonna take less space


----------



## FarmerBob

Since the timer in my L627 722 did not fire off until halfway through, I hit the Internet and got someone else's Full Two Hour OTA, Minus Commercials, 720p, which looked billion fold better on my 1080p DLP than compared to what was left on the DISH OTA capture. The .mkv file was 2.91GB.


----------



## archer75

ehren said:


> your OTA is mpeg 2 and Dish HD is mpeg 4, of course it's gonna take less space


Right there.

MPEG4 offers much better compression. For me a typical show that I work with is compressed to about 1.38gb for a 1 hour show(45 minutes without commercials) and you can't tell the difference from the original. So a 4gb mpeg4 stream is quite good.


----------



## l8er

FWIW, my wife watches CSI recorded from Spike. I routinely transfer these to the external drive so the internal drive doesn't run out of space. The other day I noticed one - 1 hour episode was showing ~2+ GB, while the one recorded right after that - same day, same channel, same 1 hour length - was showing more than 7 GB.


----------



## P Smith

l8er said:


> FWIW, my wife watches CSI recorded from Spike. I routinely transfer these to the external drive so the internal drive doesn't run out of space. The other day I noticed one - 1 hour episode was showing ~2+ GB, while the one recorded right after that - same day, same channel, same 1 hour length - was showing more than 7 GB.


If you can run stream analyzer SW, then you'll get definitive answer; I would bet last one is MPEG-2 compressed.


----------



## l8er

P Smith said:


> .... I would bet last one is MPEG-2 compressed.


 My bad. The ~7 GB episode was from the local CBS affiliate, not Spike, so yes, MPEG-2.


----------



## Jack White

You guys are using the wrong word to describe what Dish does.
I think Mpeg-4 REcompression would be the proper term as Dish recompresses the signal unlike Fiostv which gives you the FULL BANDWIDTH FULL RESOLUTION originally compressed mpeg-2 bitstream.


----------



## ruralruss

Jack White said:


> You guys are using the wrong word to describe what Dish does.
> I think Mpeg-4 REcompression would be the proper term as Dish recompresses the signal unlike Fiostv which gives you the FULL BANDWIDTH FULL RESOLUTION originally compressed mpeg-2 bitstream.


MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 are 2 totally separate compression algorithms. MPEG-4 can compress more than 2 thus allowing more channels. That extra compression does not equate to a poorer picture.

Russ


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jack White said:


> You guys are using the wrong word to describe what Dish does.
> I think Mpeg-4 REcompression would be the proper term as Dish recompresses the signal unlike Fiostv which gives you the FULL BANDWIDTH FULL RESOLUTION originally compressed mpeg-2 bitstream.


Some providers (HBO I think, for example) started using MPEG4 to deliver their channels a year or so ago... so I don't think everything is coming in MPEG2 anymore.


----------



## brant

Stewart Vernon said:


> It might be worth mentioning that I believe the 922 file size calculation is suspect.


I use WMC as a DVR, and OTA programs record @ 6GB per hour; it sounds normal that a 2:38:00 recording would be 16 gigs.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

brant said:


> I use WMC as a DVR, and OTA programs record @ 6GB per hour; it sounds normal that a 2:38:00 recording would be 16 gigs.


Agreed... but I've also seen the 922 report file sizes of 12GB for a 30-minute MPEG-4 program... and I know that can't be correct. That's why I was saying the 922-reported file sizes shouldn't be taken as "gospel" and only used in context.


----------



## brant

Stewart Vernon said:


> Agreed... but I've also seen the 922 report file sizes of 12GB for a 30-minute MPEG-4 program... and I know that can't be correct. That's why I was saying the 922-reported file sizes shouldn't be taken as "gospel" and only used in context.


could've been a corrupted file maybe?

i've seen corrupted video files that were 7GB show 25GB+ . . . they would still play but have errors.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

brant said:


> could've been a corrupted file maybe?
> 
> i've seen corrupted video files that were 7GB show 25GB+ . . . they would still play but have errors.


Could be... I haven't noticed any playback issues associated with those strangely large file sizes. I'm also not sure if that is really the file size, and as you indicate a sign of corruption, OR if the file is smaller BUT the GUI is giving an erroneous calculation.

Like... every once in a while you can be watching something and the view banner that says "xx minutes remaining" will give a crazy calculation like "46952 days" remaining :eek2:


----------



## P Smith

Sounds like memory corruption [RAM] - bad 'garbage collection' algo ?


----------



## TvilleBee

Stewart Vernon said:


> Could be... I haven't noticed any playback issues associated with those strangely large file sizes. I'm also not sure if that is really the file size, and as you indicate a sign of corruption, OR if the file is smaller BUT the GUI is giving an erroneous calculation.
> 
> Like... every once in a while you can be watching something and the view banner that says "xx minutes remaining" will give a crazy calculation like * "46952 days" remaining * :eek2:


YIKES!!! Seems as though I remember my 921 doing that a few times


----------



## P Smith

TvilleBee said:


> YIKES!!! Seems as though I remember my 921 doing that a few times


See ? For sure that 921 had the memory leak problem.


----------



## inazsully

Are all Dish HD broadcasts compressed at the same rate?


----------



## Bigg

OTA varies, but a typical rate is that of NBC affiliate WVIT-DT in Hartford, CT, which was broadcasting 5.5GB/ hour OTA during the Olympics. They had two subchannels at the time, not sure about now. A full OTA stream is close to 10GB/ hour.

Dish's MPEG-4, from what I understand, balances the bandwidth between three channels on the transponder in real time.

Dish also doesn't broadcast 1080i HD. They chop 1/3 of the horizontal resolution out to get a hybrid format of 1920x1080- which they falsely advertise as HD. That being said, most people say it looks just as good as HD, and they are very happy with it, *but it is not HD.*

The vast majority of channels are still 19mbps MPEG-2 coming from the broadcaster. Fios is the only system that passes them all on directly. Comcast, instead of putting two 19mbps channels per 38mbps 6mhz channel, puts three ~12mbps streams, often called "triple-channeling" or "tri-muxing".

Does anyone have a reliable count on the bitrate that DISH is using? From what I have heard, U-Verse is using about 5.7mbps, and it looks like crap, and from what I can gather, DISH is using an average of about 6-6.5mbps. For comparison, the MPEG-2 stream from WVIT-DT (example above) is about 12mbps.

I think online (real-time compression) has something to do with it too, beacuse I watch some online TV shows that are rendered off-line, and they have spectacular 720p video that is 3-4mbps, whereas U-Verse at 5.7 has some serious compression issues.

Real-time compression is tricky. Whereas DISH has millions of dollars of encoders that are probably all rack-mounted and cooled in their uplink centers and their main uplink center in Denver, my little pocket camera needs 8GB of space for 45 minutes of MPEG-4 AVC 720p video, due in part to a higher quality, but also due in large part to it's less powerful and less expensive encoding chip (Canon 1400IS, smaller than a cell phone, <$250 street price).

As another point of comparison, Blu-ray discs are up to 70(!!!) mbps, although they are 1080p, which is twice the resolution of 1080i or 720p.

The disadvantage of DISH's locals is that in most cases, they are capturing the feed OTA, and then re-compressing it. Any time you re-compress something, even if the resulting file is bigger (which in thise case it is most definitely smaller, otherwise they woudln't be doing it), you *will * lose some quality. Whether you can notice the difference, however, depends on a lot of factors.

That is the advantage of getting your locals OTA. If Dish were given a higher bitrate feed than goes OTA via a fiber line, then they may be able to make a nicer looking compression of it, even if it is smaller, because MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) is supposedly equivalent in quality to MPEG-2 with *half *the file size.

My knowledge gets a lot shakier at this point, but from what I understand, MPEG-4 AVC handles motion better than MPEG-2, but the ultimately higher bitrate of MPEG-2 results in slightly better detail in still or slowly-moving images, but it is a failry subtle difference to a veiwer, and I'm not completely sure that's correct at all.

The ultimate answer is fiber everywhere. 

Oh yeah, and uncompressed HD is some ridiculous bitrate like 1.5gbps. Level3 sent the last Superbowl to WCBS in NYC via a dedicated fiber line uncompressed, since they are the main head-end for CBS operations on the east coast.


----------



## James Long

Bigg said:


> Dish's MPEG-4, from what I understand, balances the bandwidth between three channels on the transponder in real time.


DISH runs up to nine HD streams on each transponder. Are you saying they are load balanced in groups of three?



> Dish also doesn't broadcast 1080i HD. They chop 1/3 of the horizontal resolution out to get a hybrid format of 1920x1080- which they falsely advertise as HD. That being said, most people say it looks just as good as HD, and they are very happy with it, *but it is not HD.*


Please tell those who wrote the standards for HD broadcast via satellite. What DISH is doing remains a valid compression technique, accepted by the industry, for HD.

Wait for 3D HDTV ... the feed is divided in half (50% resolution) for transmission with the TV alternating between halfs to provide the 3D display. I hope the "HD lite" crowd attacks 3D just as much as they attack DISH's compression.


----------



## P Smith

> They chop 1/3 of the horizontal resolution out to get a hybrid format of 1920x1080


All dish HD channels are 1440x1080i, if not 1280x720p.


----------



## Bigg

P Smith said:


> All dish HD channels are 1440x1080i, if not 1280x720p.


Good point. I meant 1440x1080i, which is HD-Lite.



James Long said:


> DISH runs up to nine HD streams on each transponder. Are you saying they are load balanced in groups of three?
> 
> Please tell those who wrote the standards for HD broadcast via satellite. What DISH is doing remains a valid compression technique, accepted by the industry, for HD.
> 
> Wait for 3D HDTV ... the feed is divided in half (50% resolution) for transmission with the TV alternating between halfs to provide the 3D display. I hope the "HD lite" crowd attacks 3D just as much as they attack DISH's compression.


The standard for *HD* is either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p, and *Full HD* is 1920x1080p. There's nothing wrong with transmitting a hybrid video format, and it is a legitmate *video* compression technique, but it is not HD.

I heard the three number in another thread, maybe it's nine balanced. Would make more sense actually, due to laws of probability. I wonder if it can tell when commercials are on and automatically push the compression level way up and push more bandwidth on the other channels?

3D is still transmitting 1920x1080i or 1280x720p, it's just being displayed in a different way. However, it is true that 3D really should be using 3840x1080p. New satellites anyone? How about just sending two full 4k images for 3D? Now *that's* the future!


----------



## P Smith

What it's interesting the 1440x1080 crop is 4:3. Coincidence ? I don't think so.


----------



## James Long

Bigg said:


> Good point. I meant 1440x1080i, which is HD-Lite.


Which is a 25% reduction, not 1/3rd as you claimed.



> The standard for *HD* is either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p, and *Full HD* is 1920x1080p. There's nothing wrong with transmitting a hybrid video format, and it is a legitmate *video* compression technique, but it is not HD.


Check into the transmission standards for HD via satellite. What DISH is doing (and DirecTV and Voom also did) is a legitimate *HD* compression technique.



> I heard the three number in another thread, maybe it's nine balanced. Would make more sense actually, due to laws of probability. I wonder if it can tell when commercials are on and automatically push the compression level way up and push more bandwidth on the other channels?


It would probably be best to look at what channels are together on a transponder before making such a guess. Most transponders have eight HD channels ... only two active Eastern Arc transponders have nine. I don't see DISH changing the channel compression based on commercial breaks. If you're seeing a quality difference on commercials it is likely more to do with the source (for example, a SD PPV promo stretched to full screen as a cross channel insert) than "giving up" bandwidth to another channel temporarily.



> 3D is still transmitting 1920x1080i or 1280x720p, it's just being displayed in a different way.


3D is at best 960x1080i ... instant "HD Lite" (to use the derogatory term).


----------



## Bigg

P Smith said:


> What it's interesting the 1440x1080 crop is 4:3. Coincidence ? I don't think so.


Maybe is, maybe not, but the point is, they are losing 1/3 of the pixels, so it's not HD. HD-Lite is HD-like, but it's not HD.


----------



## P Smith

Perhaps it's not a crop type - could someone with both provides check side-by-side if it really crop side's pixels ? - but worst, shrinking transformation ? 
I would imagine how much artifacts it would create, not just lost pixels, especially for small details.


----------



## Bigg

The other problem is if you can call 1440x1080 HD, where does the line get drawn? I watch a lot of downloaded video at resolutions that are higher than 480p, but are nowhere near 720p. Some are 854x480p, 560p or 576p. They look terrific, and on a 19" screen they look like HD, but I would be horrified if they were called HD, just because they are more than 720x480p.

1280x1080i is the one that's 1/3, that has been used in the past as well. Either way, it's still not HD.

It's a legitimate compression technique to provide *high-quality video*, but HD is HD, and HD-Lite is not HD.

My point is, 3D is still transmitting 1920 pixels of data, you're just not seeing it as 1920 pixels lined up, each eye gets 960. That's not HD or HD-Lite, it's 3D. If you want to call it HD 3D, that's *probably* OK, since it is *transmitting* an HD signal's worth of data.


----------



## Bigg

P Smith said:


> Perhaps it's not a crop type - could someone with both provides check side-by-side if it really crop side's pixels ? - but worst, shrinking transformation ?
> I would imagine how much artifacts it would create, not just lost pixels, especially for small details.


There's no cropping going on. It's still widescreen, that's why you can't tell the difference. You can test it by going to an HD channel, then the SD version of it.

As for everyone else, how would you like being advertised two double cheeseburgers, and then only getting a double cheeseburger and a regular cheeseburger? That's what DISH is doing, with the caveat that it is public knowledge that they are taking one beef patty out of the second cheeseburger, so you knew that the advertising was false when you purchased it.

Now, I'm not saying DISH isn't a great deal, great competition for cable and DirecTV, and a big innovator with the DVR's and such, but they still falsely advertise their HD.


----------



## P Smith

1280x1080i was famous invention of DTV. Luckily they stop using it after Ka satellites provides a lot of bandwidth.


----------



## ruralruss

Quote : _My knowledge gets a lot shakier at this point, but from what I understand, MPEG-4 AVC handles motion better than MPEG-2, but the ultimately higher bitrate of MPEG-2 results in slightly better detail in still or slowly-moving images, but it is a failry subtle difference to a veiwer, and I'm not completely sure that's correct at all._

Basically the only real standard in MPEG-4 (and MPEG-2 because it is absorbed into MPEG-4) is the decoding. The encoding can be done anyway the provider wishes as long as the standard decoder can decode it. This means the work is mostly all done at the time of compression and comparing 2 different MPEG-4 recordings is nothing more the comparing the amount of money or clever coding involved.

Russ


----------



## James Long

Bigg said:


> As for everyone else, how would you like being advertised two double cheeseburgers, and then only getting a double cheeseburger and a regular cheeseburger? That's what DISH is doing,


Not quite. Removing a patty from one cheeseburger would be an obvious difference ... one that would get every customer quoting Clara Peller.

What DISH is doing is more along the lines of selling a quarter pounder that doesn't weigh a quarter pound. Very few would notice (or care) that the 1/4 pound claim was "weight before cooking". The burger tasted good. Only when someone with specialized equipment (a scale) came along did "1/4 pound" become an issue. And yet after all the rhubarb over the quarter pounder it is still sold AS a quarter pounder - and the food industry accepts that.



> Now, I'm not saying DISH isn't a great deal, great competition for cable and DirecTV, and a big innovator with the DVR's and such, but they still falsely advertise their HD.


Fortunately you can choose a provider that uses compression that is more to your liking (and provides additional features the way you want them provided). Your disagreement with the way DISH runs their system does not make their advertisements false. They are following legitimate industry approved standards for HD.


----------



## Bigg

ruralruss said:


> Quote : _My knowledge gets a lot shakier at this point, but from what I understand, MPEG-4 AVC handles motion better than MPEG-2, but the ultimately higher bitrate of MPEG-2 results in slightly better detail in still or slowly-moving images, but it is a failry subtle difference to a veiwer, and I'm not completely sure that's correct at all._
> 
> Basically the only real standard in MPEG-4 (and MPEG-2 because it is absorbed into MPEG-4) is the decoding. The encoding can be done anyway the provider wishes as long as the standard decoder can decode it. This means the work is mostly all done at the time of compression and comparing 2 different MPEG-4 recordings is nothing more the comparing the amount of money or clever coding involved.
> 
> Russ


Ok, that makes sense. Maybe what I had heard about that was for what Dish had, or what was typical for broadcasting. Did DISH ever do MPEG-2 HD like DirecTV did for a while?



James Long said:


> Not quite. Removing a patty from one cheeseburger would be an obvious difference ... one that would get every customer quoting Clara Peller.
> 
> What DISH is doing is more along the lines of selling a quarter pounder that doesn't weigh a quarter pound. Very few would notice (or care) that the 1/4 pound claim was "weight before cooking". The burger tasted good. Only when someone with specialized equipment (a scale) came along did "1/4 pound" become an issue. And yet after all the rhubarb over the quarter pounder it is still sold AS a quarter pounder - and the food industry accepts that.
> 
> Fortunately you can choose a provider that uses compression that is more to your liking (and provides additional features the way you want them provided). Your disagreement with the way DISH runs their system does not make their advertisements false. They are following legitimate industry approved standards for HD.


I suppose you can say it's like not selling a quarter pound, but at least the quarter pound has some meaning to it. HD in the 1440x1080 sense doesn't, it's not HD, and it never will be.

I'm not saying I dislike it. The choice of more channels or losing 1/4 of the resolution leads to an easy acceptance of almost-HD content. That doesn't change the fact that Dish's "HD" isn't HD, at least the 1080i stuff. Anyone know what they're doing to the 720p? Or does it compress better in the first place since there's more frames to do relative motion stuff with it?

Their "HD" isn't all HD. They thus should be advertising an "HD-like experience" or an "HD-quality" picture (since it is to most people), but not "HD" in definition of the term, since they don't do HD in that sense (for 1080i).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Bigg said:


> The standard for *HD* is either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p, and *Full HD* is 1920x1080p. There's nothing wrong with transmitting a hybrid video format, and it is a legitmate *video* compression technique, but it is not HD.


"Full HD" is a marketing term, nothing more. There is no technical spec definition of "Full HD" of which I am aware.

If you look at the broadcast specs... for both OTA and SAT/Cable, there are a LOT of acceptable "HD" resolutions. There is no arguing that, because the folk responsible for defining "HD" broadcast made it so.

Now I grant you that I prefer the highest resolution + highest framerate + least amount of compression I can get... but that doesn't make others "not HD" just because you or I don't like it.



Bigg said:


> As for everyone else, how would you like being advertised two double cheeseburgers, and then only getting a double cheeseburger and a regular cheeseburger? That's what DISH is doing, with the caveat that it is public knowledge that they are taking one beef patty out of the second cheeseburger, so you knew that the advertising was false when you purchased it.


Not the same example... IF we use your "HD-lite" example...

Then a proper analogy would be a hamburger that is composed of 100% pure lean Angus beef VS one that was 75% Angus w/ 25% "filler" material to make the weight of the burger.

BUT... in that scenario, you wouldn't argue the burger wasn't a burger... you'd just argue it wasn't as good of a burger than the pure beef one.


----------



## Hoosier205

There are three uses for 1440x1080: HDV, AVCHD, and Dish Network

As far as I know, Dish Network is the only provider (cable or satellite) using 1440x1080 in the entire world.


----------



## tsmacro

Wow how much does any of this matters at all anway!?!? So little it's absolutely ridiculous! I'm amazed at how often I see people arguing about what's HD and what isn't. Who effin' cares?! The only definition i've been able to find for the term "High Definition" says the following: "A video resolution substantially higher than standard definition". Ok is that good enough for everyone? Or do we have to keep hearing about how many lines of resolution there are compared to how many some people think there should be, what kind of compression there is and blah, blah, blah de freakin' blah! Here's a test for you, look at your tv, do you like how the picture? You like it? Great, keep what you have then. Oh wait you don't, fine go shopping for another provider that provides a picture you deem acceptable. We all ok now? Any further need for this conversation to happen again ever? Sorry but over the years it seems i've seen this same conversation happen over and over and it's just so pointless.


----------



## P Smith

tsmacro said:


> Wow how much does any of this matters at all anway!?!? So little it's absolutely ridiculous! I'm amazed at how often I see people arguing about what's HD and what isn't. Who effin' cares?! The only definition i've been able to find for the term "High Definition" says the following: "A video resolution substantially higher than standard definition". Ok is that good enough for everyone? Or do we have to keep hearing about how many lines of resolution there are compared to how many some people think there should be, what kind of compression there is and blah, blah, blah de freakin' blah! Here's a test for you, look at your tv, do you like how the picture? You like it? Great, keep what you have then. Oh wait you don't, fine go shopping for another provider that provides a picture you deem acceptable. We all ok now? Any further need for this conversation to happen again ever? Sorry but over the years it seems i've seen this same conversation happen over and over and it's just so pointless.


Sorry for omission, but there was a sign "The discussion for ppl with moderate to advance knowledge " (not for J6P ).


----------



## tsmacro

P Smith said:


> Sorry for omission, but there was a sign "The discussion for ppl with moderate to advance knowledge " (not for J6P ).


I'd actually hope that people with moderate to advance knowledge would have better things to talk about.


----------



## Bigg

tsmacro said:


> Wow how much does any of this matters at all anway!?!? So little it's absolutely ridiculous! I'm amazed at how often I see people arguing about what's HD and what isn't. Who effin' cares?! The only definition i've been able to find for the term "High Definition" says the following: "A video resolution substantially higher than standard definition". Ok is that good enough for everyone? Or do we have to keep hearing about how many lines of resolution there are compared to how many some people think there should be, what kind of compression there is and blah, blah, blah de freakin' blah! Here's a test for you, look at your tv, do you like how the picture? You like it? Great, keep what you have then. Oh wait you don't, fine go shopping for another provider that provides a picture you deem acceptable. We all ok now? Any further need for this conversation to happen again ever? Sorry but over the years it seems i've seen this same conversation happen over and over and it's just so pointless.


Some people like to pull stuff out of their @$$es. It is very simple.

HD is either:

1280x720p

-OR-

1920x1080i

One pixel less, and it's not HD. More pixels, or 1920x1080p, and it is still HD. Above HD are 2k (at least 2000 wide), and 4k (at least 4000 wide). See, it's not so hard.


----------



## James Long

Some people refuse to accept industry standards. I assume they are outside of the industry?

Anyways, tsmacro is right about these threads. The conversation just occurs over and over.
Sometimes the protagonist changes, but the story reads the same.


----------



## tsmacro

Bigg said:


> Some people like to pull stuff out of their @$$es. It is very simple.
> 
> HD is either:
> 
> 1280x720p
> 
> -OR-
> 
> 1920x1080i
> 
> One pixel less, and it's not HD. More pixels, or 1920x1080p, and it is still HD. Above HD are 2k (at least 2000 wide), and 4k (at least 4000 wide). See, it's not so hard.


I'm sorry but it just doesn't matter. I'll admit that it was my own fault for taking the time to read this thread I could've chosen not to. When I started it I was hoping maybe i'd learn something new and interesting, maybe some intelligent debate would occur but it just became yet one more thread of my definition of HD is better than yours. All that really matters is if your happy with your picture. I do think it would be interesting to try an experiment where you set up several identical tv's all with a different "flavor" of HD on them and see if anyone could really tell the difference. I sort of have a funny feeling here that some people only think they can tell the difference because somebody once told them there was a difference in pixels and now they've convinced themselves they can see it. Anyway I suppose maybe it was worth one discussion once upon a time but over and over again, really?


----------



## l8er

Bigg said:


> Some people like to pull stuff out of their @$$es. It is very simple.
> 
> HD is either:
> 
> 1280x720p
> 
> -OR-
> 
> 1920x1080i ....


And I would say you're pulling that out of *your* arse because to say HD *has* to be one of those 2 resolutions (or it's not HD) is simply not true.

There's a good article here from 2 years ago but it's still relevant.



> .... The standards for what qualifies as HD .... were set by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) back in the 1990s, and really only involved one major qualification: having a whole lot of pixels. In fact, there's no real regulation over high-definition picture quality at all-"none whatsoever," one industry consultant told me.
> ....
> In order to qualify as hi-def, a signal must have either 720 horizontal lines of progressively scanned pixels (720p), 1080 lines of interlaced pixels (1080i) or 1080 lines of progressively scanned pixels (1080p, which nobody even broadcasts yet.) ....


----------



## phrelin

Well everyone is an authority on the subject. But I find reliable related information in two different Wikipedia entries about two different subjects: *High-definition television* and *High-definition video*.

Both articles are interesting. But it's important to note that at the top of the *High-definition video* entry it says "_For high-definition video in broadcasting, see High-definition television_." In other words, the Wikipedia folks came to an agreement that they two terms are not synonymous.

And then, of course, *ATSC* is a different entry. And if you really want to understand that there is no single set of standards for any of this, they offer this handy map:








I'm absolutely certain that the only HD standard that is relevant and has any meaning in my world is what appears on my old Pany plasma.


----------



## James Long

DVB-S would be the most appropriate here, since we're discussing satellite.


----------



## Bigg

Or you could just look at the rest of the industry. They are all using 1920x1080 to mean 1080i, not anything less. If you go by the 1080 lines argument, if you want square pixels, you have to have 1920x1080.


----------



## James Long

Bigg said:


> Or you could just look at the rest of the industry. They are all using 1920x1080 to mean 1080i, not anything less. If you go by the 1080 lines argument, if you want square pixels, you have to have 1920x1080.


This is a DBS forum ... DBS standards will work fine.


----------



## Bigg

James Long said:


> This is a DBS forum ... DBS standards will work fine.


DBS doesn't get a pass on following the same picture standards that terrestrial, cable, IPTV, and fiber providers, as well as archrival DirecTV follow just because their infrastructure is 23k miles away and not in the Ka band like DirecTV's system. If DISH wants to do HD-Lite, that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HD, or should be required to have in the fine print that it visually approximates HD, and is not, in reality, HD.

Name one other provider who calls 1440x1080 "HD". DirecTV eliminated the practice of using 1280x1080 as soon as was technically possible because they knew that it wasn't HD from day 1, and as soon as they got the equipment out there for Ka-band MPEG-4, the days of fake HD were over for them.


----------



## James Long




----------



## ruralruss

Bigg said:


> Or you could just look at the rest of the industry. They are all using 1920x1080 to mean 1080i, not anything less. If you go by the 1080 lines argument, if you want square pixels, you have to have 1920x1080.


LCD and plasma televisions do not have square pixels.

Russ


----------



## RasputinAXP

Square pixels: most plasmas don't, but most LCDs do.


----------



## phrelin

I don't know why we have two threads going at the same time over this complicated issue. But IMHO the argument is irrelevant without discussing the context - what the viewer "sees" on the screen which is the brain's interpretation of colors and "brightness/contrast."

Not only can you wander down the aisle of an electronics store and see the differences between the displayed image from the same BD from the same BD player on different TVs, but people respond differently to what their brain "sees."

Frankly, I don't like most "live action" TV series and movies shot with HD video cameras and retained in that format for distribution to viewers, even more particularly if it is displayed on a high contrast display that tends to towards higher color saturation. Yeah, the credits are easy to read. Big deal.

To me this is an area where art meets science meets my brain. To start off with, I'm put off by HD displaying the pores in the skin of most actors. In my brain, fuzzy isn't inherently bad here.

Bigg's brain apparently must have the crispest, most well-defined, ideal picture. That ideal leaves only a lossless-compressed 1080p digital stream coming straight from the video camera which isn't available. If it were, it couldn't be displayed on my 42" 720p Pany plasma and if I had a display that could display it, my brain probably wouldn't "like" it because it seems to force me to "see" things that I wouldn't "see" in person and which I find distasteful in the art.

Or, to simplify, this whole thing about picture quality is a matter of opinion, not some universal truth.


----------



## Bigg

phrelin said:


> I don't know why we have two threads going at the same time over this complicated issue. But IMHO the argument is irrelevant without discussing the context - what the viewer "sees" on the screen which is the brain's interpretation of colors and "brightness/contrast."
> 
> Not only can you wander down the aisle of an electronics store and see the differences between the displayed image from the same BD from the same BD player on different TVs, but people respond differently to what their brain "sees."
> 
> Frankly, I don't like most "live action" TV series and movies shot with HD video cameras and retained in that format for distribution to viewers, even more particularly if it is displayed on a high contrast display that tends to towards higher color saturation. Yeah, the credits are easy to read. Big deal.
> 
> To me this is an area where art meets science meets my brain. To start off with, I'm put off by HD displaying the pores in the skin of most actors. In my brain, fuzzy isn't inherently bad here.
> 
> Bigg's brain apparently must have the crispest, most well-defined, ideal picture. That ideal leaves only a lossless-compressed 1080p digital stream coming straight from the video camera which isn't available. If it were, it couldn't be displayed on my 42" 720p Pany plasma and if I had a display that could display it, my brain probably wouldn't "like" it because it seems to force me to "see" things that I wouldn't "see" in person and which I find distasteful in the art.
> 
> Or, to simplify, this whole thing about picture quality is a matter of opinion, not some universal truth.


I'm not arguing that everyone should have or want actual HD content. What DISH is doing absolutely makes sense from a bandwidth perspective, and it's a better option than leaving it at 1920x1080i and smashing the heck out it. However, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HD, because it is not HD.

Personally, however, I would prefer if everything were transmitted in 2160p (4K) at over 100mbps MPEG-4AVC, and if we had the displays to show it properly. In that world, I would kill all the locals, and have one set of networks per time zone, and I'd cull out the junk out of the cable networks, and have 30 channels left that actually put out high-value content. There is no need for 13 Discovery channels, and most of the rest of the stuff out there is just garbage. Sadly, all that crap up there is constipating our TV experience's bandwidth.


----------



## ruralruss

RasputinAXP said:


> Square pixels: most plasmas don't, but most LCDs do.


Actually if you look at LCD pixels with a magnifying glass you will find that most are actually chevrons.

Russ


----------



## tsmacro

Bigg said:


> However, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HD, because it is not HD.


Sheesh, obsess much? :lol: How many times and how many ways do you think you need to post this before it's enough? At this point I think it's pretty safe to say we all get how you feel on the matter.


----------



## P Smith

ruralruss said:


> Actually if you look at LCD pixels with a magnifying glass you will find that most are actually chevrons.
> 
> Russ


Those three colors in 'chevron' fashion creating one square pixel.


----------



## ruralruss

P Smith said:


> Those three colors in 'chevron' fashion creating one square pixel.


Yes I know but it is not exactly a square, nor are plasma's exactly square so in reality they shouldn't be advertised as square. Just playing the devils advocate here!

Russ


----------



## P Smith

ruralruss said:


> Yes I know but it is not exactly a square, nor are plasma's exactly square so in reality they shouldn't be advertised as square. Just playing the devils advocate here!
> 
> Russ


Practically close to the square shape, in opposite to that ratio of 1440x1080i format what no one TV supports and should be scale up inside of dish receiver. 
Worst thing is here - artifacts, because of missing info what was cut during downsizing at provider site and the data cannot be restored without adding artificial data.


----------



## phrelin

P Smith said:


> Practically close to the square shape, in opposite to that ratio of 1440x1080i format what no one TV supports and should be scale up inside of dish receiver.
> Worst thing is here - artifacts, because of missing info what was cut during downsizing at provider site and the data cannot be restored without adding artificial data.


Which to my brain's view seems to work fine on my 42" Pany from 7' away.


----------



## P Smith

While I'm agree with individual perception I can't accept it when I'm doing test verification or writing test plans. 
It is imperative to get technical criteria to verify signals include HD video. That equipment - encoders, scalers, etc using for providers and customers has certain physical characteristics (measurable !) include the resolution part.


----------



## James Long

That would be the question of "what is better HD" ... a better topic than "what is HD" but still a bit (or pixel?) off track for a forum dedicated to a single HD provider.


----------



## inazsully

So who, on paper, offers the highest quality picture to the TV screen? Dish. Direct, Cox, Comcast, Verizon Fios etc?


----------



## Bigg

inazsully said:


> So who, on paper, offers the highest quality picture to the TV screen? Dish. Direct, Cox, Comcast, Verizon Fios etc?


Fios. 19mbit MPEG-2, un re-compressed, other than for HBO, which sends it as an MPEG-4 stream, but Fios would still be the best, as none of the MPEG-4 providers pass it straight through.

It gets more complicated after that, as cable triple-channels, and DirecTV and Dish have their own systems for compressing, and they use MPEG-4. It's pretty much agreed that U-Verse is dead last, although many have said that their SD, along with Dish's, are the best in the industry, FWIW.

If you can't get Fios, probably DirecTV, maybe cable.


----------



## Jack White

Wow, Dish really does COMPRESS THE HELL OUT OF the original content.
Back in the day when I used to work part time selling electronics during college, 24Mbps was a good bitrate for AVCHD, and 17 Mbps was ok. For Mpeg-2 HDV, 25Mpbs was good.
At 17 Mpbs, an 8 gig memory card gave you 60 minutes, and at 24Mbps, an 8 gig card would give you 45 minutes. I'm so glad I left dish, it was just unbearable. I now just mostly watch bluray movies on my Pioneer Kuro Elite Plasma with my 7.1 setup with an SVS sub the size of a small fridge. The running scene near the end of "A Perfect Getaway" would be a GREAT GREAT tool for testing the picture quality on Dish vs Directv vs Comcast vs Fiostv vs Bluray. Bluray would be the winner ofcourse, but on a good tv that can pass the 1080I deinterlace test(like all Pioneer Plasmas for example), Fiostv would be darn close to Bluray.
This link is EXTREMELY important to click on for anyone who even cares a little bit about picture quality.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271
Comcast used to have HD picture quality equal to Fios before it started cramming in too many HD channels for their limited bandwidth.
The screencaps on this thread really show you what kind of hit your tv watching experience takes everytime new channels are added without adding bandwidth.


----------



## Bigg

Jack White said:


> Wow, Dish really does COMPRESS THE HELL OUT OF the original content.
> Back in the day when I used to work part time selling electronics during college, 24Mbps was a good bitrate for AVCHD, and 17 Mbps was ok. For Mpeg-2 HDV, 25Mpbs was good.
> At 17 Mpbs, an 8 gig memory card gave you 60 minutes, and at 24Mbps, an 8 gig card would give you 45 minutes. I'm so glad I left dish, it was just unbearable. I now just mostly watch bluray movies on my Pioneer Kuro Elite Plasma with my 7.1 setup with an SVS sub the size of a small fridge. The running scene near the end of "A Perfect Getaway" would be a GREAT GREAT tool for testing the picture quality on Dish vs Directv vs Comcast vs Fiostv vs Bluray. Bluray would be the winner ofcourse, but on a good tv that can pass the 1080I deinterlace test(like all Pioneer Plasmas for example), Fiostv would be darn close to Bluray.
> This link is EXTREMELY important to click on for anyone who even cares a little bit about picture quality.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271
> Comcast used to have HD picture quality equal to Fios before it started cramming in too many HD channels for their limited bandwidth.
> The screencaps on this thread really show you what kind of hit your tv watching experience takes everytime new channels are added without adding bandwidth.


Yeah, they compress a lot. In order to avoid it, Comcast needs to kill of analog and use SDV, and others need to bring fiber right to the house.


----------



## Jack White

Bigg said:


> Yeah, they compress a lot. In order to avoid it, Comcast needs to kill of analog and use SDV, and others need to bring fiber right to the house.


Comcast is WAY overcompressed, but I still think it's head and shoulders above Dish.
I watched The Unborn on Cinemax on a Pioneer Elite Plasma at my parents house with 5.1 sound, and it was actually near Bluray quality 1920x1080i FULL HD(Pioneer Elites have have an AWESOME DEinterlacer where you get FULL 1080P from a solid 1080I signal) and above 10Mbps according to the file size on the DVR even though it was MPEG-4. 
Comcast is below Fios and 4DTV and obviously below Bluray(which is not really a fair comparsion), but I do think that Comcast is still head and shoulders above Dish as far as compression/picture quality is concerned.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Jack White said:


> Comcast is WAY overcompressed, but I still think it's head and shoulders above Dish.
> I watched The Unborn on Cinemax on a Pioneer Elite Plasma at my parents house with 5.1 sound, and it was actually near Bluray quality 1920x1080i FULL HD(Pioneer Elites have have an AWESOME DEinterlacer where you get FULL 1080P from a solid 1080I signal) and above 10Mbps according to the file size on the DVR even though it was MPEG-4.
> Comcast is below Fios and 4DTV and obviously below Bluray(which is not really a fair comparsion), but I do think that Comcast is still head and shoulders above Dish as far as compression/picture quality is concerned.


What are you smoking and who's your supplier?

Give me a break.


----------



## Jim5506

Bigg said:


> I'm not arguing that everyone should have or want actual HD content. What DISH is doing absolutely makes sense from a bandwidth perspective, and it's a better option than leaving it at 1920x1080i and smashing the heck out it. However, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as HD, because it is not HD.


The only problem with your argument is that you totally refuse to recognise that 1440X1080i/30 is a legitimately defined HD standard for satellite TV transmission in the ATSC standard.

It would be wonderful if all carriers used 1920X1080i/30 1280X720p/60 but in practical terms unless you are actually doing a side-by-side comparison, 90% of viewers cannot tell the difference because the human eye does not register horizonal resolution as discriminately as it registers vertical resolution.

It is not the ATSC OTA standard, that is 1920X1080i/30 or 1280X720p/60, but your statement that 1400X1080i/30 is not HD is patently FALSE and as the argument goes on it becomes more obvious that your mind is made up regardless of the facts.


----------



## Bigg

Jack White said:


> Comcast is WAY overcompressed, but I still think it's head and shoulders above Dish.
> I watched The Unborn on Cinemax on a Pioneer Elite Plasma at my parents house with 5.1 sound, and it was actually near Bluray quality 1920x1080i FULL HD(Pioneer Elites have have an AWESOME DEinterlacer where you get FULL 1080P from a solid 1080I signal) and above 10Mbps according to the file size on the DVR even though it was MPEG-4.
> Comcast is below Fios and 4DTV and obviously below Bluray(which is not really a fair comparsion), but I do think that Comcast is still head and shoulders above Dish as far as compression/picture quality is concerned.


Comcast may look better on some channels then DISH.

But, they don't use MPEG-4, it is about 12mbps, since it's triple-channeled MPEG-2 (roughly equivalent to 6mbps MPEG-4 AVC), and de-interlacing will make things like nice, but you will never get full 1080p from a 1080i source, it's still de-interlaced.



Jim5506 said:


> The only problem with your argument is that you totally refuse to recognise that 1440X1080i/30 is a legitimately defined HD standard for satellite TV transmission in the ATSC standard.


HD is defined as 1920x1080i or 1280x720, and it always has been from day 1, before cable or satellite even had the capability to carry it.



Jim5506 said:


> It would be wonderful if all carriers used 1920X1080i/30 1280X720p/60 but in practical terms unless you are actually doing a side-by-side comparison, 90% of viewers cannot tell the difference because the human eye does not register horizonal resolution as discriminately as it registers vertical resolution.


Probably quite true, but it doesn't make 1440x1080i HD. Because it isn't. It's just high-resolution video that looks like HD. Or even HD-like. Or HD quality. But it's NOT HD. Certainly not the worst misrepresentation ever pulled off, far from it, since most people will never know the difference, but it's still a lie to call it HD.


----------



## RasputinAXP

Can we cut the crap yet?

HDV, which is what they use to record HD video, is 1440x1080. It's an anamorphic mode of 1920x1080 and it's easier on the storage. Guess what? It's where most of your precious zomg1080p content originates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV if you need to look it up.

It's not a part of the ATSC format because they only define terrestrial OTA broadcasts. We're not talking about OTA, though, are we? We're discussing satellite.

High horse. Off it. Thanks.


----------



## Jack White

RasputinAXP said:


> Can we cut the crap yet?
> 
> HDV, which is what they use to record HD video, is 1440x1080. It's an anamorphic mode of 1920x1080 and it's easier on the storage. Guess what? It's where most of your precious zomg1080p content originates.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV if you need to look it up.
> 
> It's not a part of the ATSC format because they only define terrestrial OTA broadcasts. We're not talking about OTA, though, are we? We're discussing satellite.
> 
> High horse. Off it. Thanks.


Actually most of the precious content I watch originates on either 35mm film or HD CAM-SR.
It really depends on what programming you watch. Out of the major providers Fiostv is the only one that gives you the programming provider INTENDED quality.
For everyone else and especially Dish, it's just a race to the bottom for who has the worse picture quality. Most Americans could care less about picture quality and that's why Laserdisc wasn't sucessful in the US but it was HUGE in Japan. Most Americans would buy a crappy LCD or LED at the same price as a HUGELY DISCOUNTED few remaining Pioneer Kuro Elite plasmas that are still left. If one product has great picture quality and another has horrible picture quality, the American consumer will go for the one with WORST picture quality even if the product with worse picture quality costs more.
Salesman to customer " Sir this Pioneer Kuro Elite Signature Series Plasma had a $7,000 MSRP when it first came out and now you can have it for less than the price of this 60hz Insignia LCD because the Pioneer is on closeout. Customer: "Yeah, but the LCD weighs 15 lbs less and I heard that plasmas start leaking gas after a year so I'll stick to the Insignia thanks".


----------



## phrelin

Jack White said:


> Actually most of the precious content I watch originates on either 35mm film or HD CAM-SR.
> It really depends on what programming you watch. Out of the major providers Fiostv is the only one that gives you the programming provider INTENDED quality.
> For everyone else and especially Dish, it's just a race to the bottom for who has the worse picture quality. Most Americans could care less about picture quality and that's why Laserdisc wasn't sucessful in the US but it was HUGE in Japan. Most Americans would buy a crappy LCD or LED at the same price as a HUGELY DISCOUNTED few remaining Pioneer Kuro Elite plasmas that are still left. If one product has great picture quality and another has horrible picture quality, the American consumer will go for the one with WORST picture quality even if the product with worse picture quality costs more.
> Salesman to customer " Sir this Pioneer Kuro Elite Signature Series Plasma had a $7,000 MSRP when it first came out and now you can have it for less than the price of this 60hz Insignia LCD because the Pioneer is on closeout. Customer: "Yeah, but the LCD weighs 15 lbs less and I heard that plasmas start leaking gas after a year so I'll stick to the Insignia thanks".


Everything you say is true, let's say.

A Pioneer PRO 151FD - 60" Elite KURO plasma TV panel only weighs 112 lbs. 4 oz. and is 5' wide. An LG 32LD450 32-Inch 1080p 60Hz LCD HDTV weighs 17.9 lbs. and is about 2'6" wide. The Pioneer dominates a room making the statement that you must be here to watch TV. The LG says "we have a TV."

What most signal carriers understand is that the vast majority of their customers have a TV, while only a few have a true home theater. The carriers are delivering signals from the most popular (based on ratings) sources, a signal that starts out at 1080i or 720p.

They are simply recognizing that the folks with the Pioneer will be watching a lot of Blu-ray disks (or maybe getting HD streams until their ISP turns them off). Dish does offer some PPV 1080p that is downloaded to the DVRs which I'd guess might look OK to the Pioneer owners.

The Pioneer owner will never be the target customer for the two primary satellite companies or for cable companies. They gripe too much.:grin:

(Yes, I know LG makes some good very large panels. I'm just using the 32" LCD as an example.)


----------



## peano

Jack White said:


> Most Americans would buy a crappy LCD or LED at the same price as a HUGELY DISCOUNTED few remaining Pioneer Kuro Elite plasmas that are still left. If one product has great picture quality and another has horrible picture quality, the American consumer will go for the one with WORST picture quality even if the product with worse picture quality costs more.


Which is why they can't see the over-compression.

Unfortunately its not just TVs. Most consumers will generally buy cheap junk every time. So places like Walmart thrive. The Chinese junk breaks and it ends up in landfill. The same consumers make another trip to Walmart and start all over. And then they wonder why the American economy is in dire straits.

But I digress. I have a 60" KURO Elite and for the most part Dish Network HD is reasonable. Some stations are sorely lacking bandwidth though. Take WFN for example. I suspect it has very few viewers and so Dish doesn't get too many complaints but it is full of artifacts and macroblocking. It doen't even look like 480p.

On the other hand, HBO looks pretty good as I am sure it gets a higher bandwidth allocation.

The bottom line is the providers will continue to degrade the signal until they start losing money because of it. I doubt that day will ever come. Gripe over. ;-)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I only walk on compressed air. The ground is dirty, so I don't like to touch it. Why does anyone else?

I only drink beverages chilled to exactly 35 degrees (Fahrenheit). Why would anyone drink a beverage that is not optimally chilled? Anything warmer is just not of the highest quality.

Paper or plastic cups and plates are inferior... only the finest crystal and china for me.

Dare I go on? 

The points being:

1. Some people value top quality, damn the costs... other people try to get the best that they can... and still others really don't care if it is less than top quality as long as they can watch it at all. Since it really is all just opinion, there is no wrong answer.

2. Some folks continue to confuse their opinion with fact. I prefer 1080i or 1080p at 1920x1080 resolution... THAT is opinion. 1280x720p is also HD resolution, and for satellite broadcast 1440x1080i is part of the adopted standard. THOSE are facts.


----------



## peano

Stewart Vernon said:


> Paper or plastic cups and plates are inferior... only the finest crystal and china for me.
> 
> Dare I go on?
> 
> The points being:
> 
> 1. Some people value top quality, damn the costs... other people try to get the best that they can... and still others really don't care if it is less than top quality as long as they can watch it at all. Since it really is all just opinion, there is no wrong answer.


Buy Made in North America glasses and plates. Don't settle for mediocrity and the throw away mentality.


----------



## Jason Nipp

Oh boy~!


----------



## inazsully

Stewart Vernon said:


> I only walk on compressed air. The ground is dirty, so I don't like to touch it. Why does anyone else?
> 
> I only drink beverages chilled to exactly 35 degrees (Fahrenheit). Why would anyone drink a beverage that is not optimally chilled? Anything warmer is just not of the highest quality.
> 
> Paper or plastic cups and plates are inferior... only the finest crystal and china for me.
> 
> Dare I go on?
> 
> The points being:
> 
> 1. Some people value top quality, damn the costs... other people try to get the best that they can... and still others really don't care if it is less than top quality as long as they can watch it at all. Since it really is all just opinion, there is no wrong answer.
> 
> 2. Some folks continue to confuse their opinion with fact. I prefer 1080i or 1080p at 1920x1080 resolution... THAT is opinion. 1280x720p is also HD resolution, and for satellite broadcast 1440x1080i is part of the adopted standard. THOSE are facts.


Stewart I think you hit the nail on the head with your one simple statement. "Other people try to get the best that they can". 90% of the people I know, including me, fall into that category. Most of us want "Bang for our buck" Key words "our buck". Most of us live within some kind of self imposed budget and home entertainment falls squarely in the center. If unbiased information regarding who provides the best picture was available, and all of those providers were available to all of us, then our budget would determine our choice. It seems that the quality numbers go to Fios but they are not available to most of the country and they seem to bit a little more expensive. "D" (Direct TV) and "E" (Dish network) are the most available provider on a national level. So most of us will muddle along trying to decide who is best among the available providers in our little world.


----------



## Bigg

RasputinAXP said:


> Can we cut the crap yet?
> 
> HDV, which is what they use to record HD video, is 1440x1080. It's an anamorphic mode of 1920x1080 and it's easier on the storage. Guess what? It's where most of your precious zomg1080p content originates.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV if you need to look it up.
> 
> It's not a part of the ATSC format because they only define terrestrial OTA broadcasts. We're not talking about OTA, though, are we? We're discussing satellite.
> 
> High horse. Off it. Thanks.


Many HD content providers only accept a certain amount of the program to be shot in HDV. Deadliest Catch is shot totally in HDV, but they don't have the ability to use larger cameras, so it's impossible to shoot it in HD. That show is proof positive that 1440x1080 is good enough in many cases, BUT that still doesn't make the source footage actually HD. The show probably is, as it's probably edited and overlayed at 1920x1080.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, I'm just saying it is false to advertise it as HD, because it's not HD. It has 518,400 less pixels than HD.


----------



## James Long

Bigg said:


> That show is proof positive that 1440x1080 is good enough in many cases, BUT that still doesn't make the source footage actually HD. The show probably is, as it's probably edited and overlayed at 1920x1080.


So you will accept that a show shot in 1440x1080 is "probably" HD because it is overlaid at 1920x1080?

Every channel my DISH receiver displays is overlaid at 1920x1080 (I also have the option of setting the output at 1280x720). If you accept that the show is HD because it is overlaid at 1920x1080 then you must accept that ALL DISH network content is HD because it is overlaid at 1920x1080 or 1280x720 for delivery to HD TVs.

And that illustrates the problem with making up your own standards. Earlier you were so fixated that the signal must be 1920x1080 from end to end or it isn't HD ... now it is ok to start with 1440x1080 as long as it is overlaid as 1920x1080. The standards (real standards used by the real industry) absolutely DO NOT require 1920 pixels wide to earn the HD designation.

It is HD.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Bigg said:


> Many HD content providers only accept a certain amount of the program to be shot in HDV. Deadliest Catch is shot totally in HDV, but they don't have the ability to use larger cameras, so it's impossible to shoot it in HD. That show is proof positive that 1440x1080 is good enough in many cases, BUT that still doesn't make the source footage actually HD. The show probably is, as it's probably edited and overlayed at 1920x1080.
> 
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, I'm just saying it is false to advertise it as HD, because it's not HD. It has 518,400 less pixels than HD.


So ESPN, Fox, most Discovery shows, Most National Geographic, National Geographic Wild shows, are false advertising, that they are HD, because they aren't in 1920x1080? Lets not forget the HD-Net shows like Get Out, Art Mann, just for starters on that Network as shows captured in 1440x1080.

You do realize that HD is defined from 1280x720 all the way through 1920x1080. Anything between those bottom and top numbers are HD.

Now if you only want to count 1920x1080, only 1920x1080p is really HD as thats the new high standard.
So since we are only going to count the top end, 1920x1080p, only Blu-Ray is HD, and everthing else is false Advertising. So every Broadcaster and every carrier is false advertising, as they don't carry all signals or broadcast channels in 1920x1080p.


----------



## phrelin

I assume we all know that 4320p is the current _highest_ definition standard under development. As I understand the purist side of this debate, should 4320p displays, video disks and players become generally available, anything lower could no longer be called "true" high definition.


----------



## P Smith

You can fight all day long about you own perception, concept, TV, you spouse approval a budget for HDTV gear, an answer to the question stay on professional side - who is manufacturing the equipment, who is using, who is maintain it, it is based on strict standards ( if I'm doing HW/SW tests and calibration I would use BOOKs not your opinions).
Other factor of degradation is what coming from that guys who are on day/night shift in a room with the equipment, who are follow *company*'s rules and verbal orders what create substandard picture and sound.


----------



## Jack White

Recompressing is like wattering down a soda/beer. Changing the resolution is like actually changing the formula of the soda/beer. Even Mcdonalds wouldn't get away with that kind of stuff but Dish, Directv, and Comcast get away with the same thing.
I hope Fiostv becomes really big so that people don't have to deal with overcompressed garbage anymore.


----------



## HobbyTalk

FIOS will never be in the majority of the U.S. and they are already scaling back the deployment of it in some areas that they can install it in.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Rest assured that IF FIOS ever does achieve that kind of penetration, they too will start over-compressing or whatever it takes.

Personally, I prefer actual-resolution of real life... and nothing I see on TV ever compares to the resolution I see outside my window.


----------



## EaglePC

no 1080p soon i guess


----------



## Bigg

James Long said:


> So you will accept that a show shot in 1440x1080 is "probably" HD because it is overlaid at 1920x1080?
> 
> Every channel my DISH receiver displays is overlaid at 1920x1080 (I also have the option of setting the output at 1280x720). If you accept that the show is HD because it is overlaid at 1920x1080 then you must accept that ALL DISH network content is HD because it is overlaid at 1920x1080 or 1280x720 for delivery to HD TVs.
> 
> And that illustrates the problem with making up your own standards. Earlier you were so fixated that the signal must be 1920x1080 from end to end or it isn't HD ... now it is ok to start with 1440x1080 as long as it is overlaid as 1920x1080. The standards (real standards used by the real industry) absolutely DO NOT require 1920 pixels wide to earn the HD designation.
> 
> It is HD.


No, what I am saying is that DISH should not be advertising a signal that is not HD as HD. The challenge with HDV is that if you say everything in an HD show has to be shot in HD, then you can't ever use archive footage. While HDV isn't usually archive footage, since it's only been used for less than a decade, it falls in the same category.

The point here is that if DISH is going to advertise HD, instead of an "HD-like picture" then they should be required to send 1920x1080 for the 1080i channels, because some of the time, the content will be capable of that sort of resolution, especially when you get to movies that were shot on film, since those are typically scanned in well above 1080p, often times 4K.



GrumpyBear said:


> You do realize that HD is defined from 1280x720 all the way through 1920x1080. Anything between those bottom and top numbers are HD.
> 
> Now if you only want to count 1920x1080, only 1920x1080p is really HD as thats the new high standard.
> So since we are only going to count the top end, 1920x1080p, only Blu-Ray is HD, and everthing else is false Advertising. So every Broadcaster and every carrier is false advertising, as they don't carry all signals or broadcast channels in 1920x1080p.


It is defined as 1280x720*p *OR 1920x1080*i*.

Unfortunately, there is no bitrate requirement for HD, so providers get a pass on this. I think it should have been 19mbit MPEG-2, but that didn't happen, so now we have what we have with over-compression.



phrelin said:


> I assume we all know that 4320p is the current _highest_ definition standard under development. As I understand the purist side of this debate, should 4320p displays, video disks and players become generally available, anything lower could no longer be called "true" high definition.


I actually didn't know this. I thought 2160p was the current top of the line, but now I know otherwise. The streams would be a bit beastly, at 500+mbps. I think you could get like four channels per Ka satellite, ten channels for Fios's entire capacity. It would have to be delivered via IPTV on gigabit fiber, and it would still have the U-Verse problem with simultaneous streams. Maybe 10 gig fiber?



Jack White said:


> Recompressing is like wattering down a soda/beer. Changing the resolution is like actually changing the formula of the soda/beer. Even Mcdonalds wouldn't get away with that kind of stuff but Dish, Directv, and Comcast get away with the same thing.
> I hope Fiostv becomes really big so that people don't have to deal with overcompressed garbage anymore.


Yeah, that's absolutely true, the problem is, Fios isn't available in most areas. DISH should step up to the plate and get a pair of Ka band satellites up there just for CONUS MPEG-2 HD content that is not recompressed. Not going to happen though, as there aren't enough people who know what they are actually looking at. If there were, then they would have already done it. Bumping up in quality is relatively easy, since there are no LIL's to worry about.


----------



## James Long

So it is perfectly fine for you to call something HD that is completely shot in 1440x1080 just because it was transmitted in 1920x1080i but you won't accept 1440x1080i transmission? 

Silly. As you noted, archival footage is often not a HD source but there are a lot of HD programs that use SD archival footage. Transmitted in 1920x1080i so they MUST be HD shows. 

1440x1080i HD _is_ HD ... the industry accepts it as HD, they have written their standards to accept it as HD and the industry has more pull in this world than a few lone voices howling on the Internet.


----------



## GrumpyBear

James Long said:


> So it is perfectly fine for you to call something HD that is completely shot in 1440x1080 just because it was transmitted in 1920x1080i but you won't accept 1440x1080i transmission?
> 
> Silly. As you noted, archival footage is often not a HD source but there are a lot of HD programs that use SD archival footage. Transmitted in 1920x1080i so they MUST be HD shows.
> 
> 1440x1080i HD _is_ HD ... the industry accepts it as HD, they have written their standards to accept it as HD and the industry has more pull in this world than a few lone voices howling on the Internet.


The ATSC sets the standards,
and in ATSC Standard A/72 part 1, approved in 2008, 1440x1080 is part of the HD standard.
1080p x 1920 is also part of the standard. So if we are only going to count the highest portion of the Standard, everybody needs to come up to speed, 1080i x1920 is no longer the top end of the Standard, 1080p x 1920 is the current Standard, and all other signals are False HD signals.

Unless of course, we go by the ATSC standards and allow all HD standards into play. That would really keep down on the false advertising, buy Cable, Dish, Direct, ESPN, ABC, FOX, Discovery, National Geo, HD-Net, and lets not for get APPLE, just for starters.

The difference between 1440 and 1920 is barely noticeable on a HD TV set.

It's the vertical res that is important, not the horizontal one.

1440 use a rectagular pixels aspect ratio as 1920 use square one. So the 1440 use less space on capture with the same image quality.


----------



## RasputinAXP

I'm tired of this discussion. It's like herding kittens.


----------



## HobbyTalk

James Long said:


> So it is perfectly fine for you to call something HD that is completely shot in 1440x1080 just because it was transmitted in 1920x1080i but you won't accept 1440x1080i transmission? .


Not any different then Dish is doing now. It is transmitted at 1440x1080 but is converted to 1920x1080i before it goes to the display. There is no way for a customer to view Dish's HD programing other then in 1920x1080i or 1280x720p.


----------



## HobbyTalk

ATSC Standard A/72 part 1


----------



## James Long

HobbyTalk said:


> Not any different then Dish is doing now. It is transmitted at 1440x1080 but is converted to 1920x1080i before it goes to the display.


Which is what I said back in post #79 of this thread.



> There is no way for a customer to view Dish's HD programing other then in 1920x1080i or 1280x720p.


It can be viewed in stunning 480i and via the composite and RF outputs as well.  :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

RasputinAXP said:


> I'm tired of this discussion. It's like herding kittens.


Yeah, except eventually you can herd the kittens!

:hurah:


----------



## thevintner

I hope you guys don't mind a comment from the other world - the world of non-geek dish subscribers who just watch and enjoy the Dish offerings and products. I periodically get on this site and other technology forums to get updates and ideas; I really appreciate the knowledge and advice on this and other forums.

It is funny to observe human nature on all of these type boards as there appears always to exist a superiority police whose job it is to point out to others the inferiority in their products and understanding. While it is prevalent in this thread - not really so much overall in this forum. On cell phone forums, it is rampant: the iphone superiority police; the android superiority police. They lurk around relishing the opportunity to expound on their superiority.

To me, the HD offerings of Dish look really good and I think their cost is fair and their hardware is excellent. I really couldn't care less that under a microscope the FIOS offerings (that i can't get) are better. I guess that shows my inferiority. Oh, well!!.


----------



## sigma1914

thevintner said:


> I hope you guys don't mind a comment from the other world - the world of non-geek dish subscribers who just watch and enjoy the Dish offerings and products. I periodically get on this site and other technology forums to get updates and ideas; I really appreciate the knowledge and advice on this and other forums.
> 
> It is funny to observe human nature on all of these type boards as there *appears always to exist a superiority police whose job it is to point out to others the inferiority in their products and understanding.* While it is prevalent in this thread - not really so much overall in this forum. On cell phone forums, it is rampant: the iphone superiority police; the android superiority police. They lurk around relishing the opportunity to expound on their superiority.
> 
> To me, the HD offerings of Dish look really good and I think their cost is fair and their hardware is excellent. I really couldn't care less that under a microscope the FIOS offerings (that i can't get) are better. I guess that shows my inferiority. Oh, well!!.


Two words...Steve Mehs :lol:


----------



## Bigg

James Long said:


> So it is perfectly fine for you to call something HD that is completely shot in 1440x1080 just because it was transmitted in 1920x1080i but you won't accept 1440x1080i transmission?
> 
> Silly. As you noted, archival footage is often not a HD source but there are a lot of HD programs that use SD archival footage. Transmitted in 1920x1080i so they MUST be HD shows.
> 
> 1440x1080i HD _is_ HD ... the industry accepts it as HD, they have written their standards to accept it as HD and the industry has more pull in this world than a few lone voices howling on the Internet.


That's the way the definitions are written, because you can't rule out archival footage, as that would severely cripple the ability to do certain types of shows, like History shows.

The definitions also don't specify bitrate, so an over-compressed 1920x1080i signal is HD, while a less compressed 1440x1080i signal isn't, even though you'd want to watch the 1440x1080i signal.

Unfortunately, that's the way the standards are. I wish that HD was defined by a bit rate of 19mbps CBR using MPEG-2, but then this would make it impossible to stream over most internet connections, so there's a downside to that too.



thevintner said:


> I hope you guys don't mind a comment from the other world - the world of non-geek dish subscribers who just watch and enjoy the Dish offerings and products. I periodically get on this site and other technology forums to get updates and ideas; I really appreciate the knowledge and advice on this and other forums.
> 
> It is funny to observe human nature on all of these type boards as there appears always to exist a superiority police whose job it is to point out to others the inferiority in their products and understanding. While it is prevalent in this thread - not really so much overall in this forum. On cell phone forums, it is rampant: the iphone superiority police; the android superiority police. They lurk around relishing the opportunity to expound on their superiority.
> 
> To me, the HD offerings of Dish look really good and I think their cost is fair and their hardware is excellent. I really couldn't care less that under a microscope the FIOS offerings (that i can't get) are better. I guess that shows my inferiority. Oh, well!!.


Yeah, HD looks decent from many providers. However, everyone who knows how this technology works wants Fios mostly because it is not re-compressed, not because of the 1440 issue, even though most of us can't actually get it.


----------



## James Long

Bigg said:


> Unfortunately, that's the way the standards are.


Standards have clearly been pointed to that define 1440x1080i as HD.

I'm glad you finally have decided to accept standards. Will you ever accept this HD standard? I have no problem with you wishing that providers used a higher standard _*of*_ HD. But please accept the standards that the industry follows.


----------



## P Smith

Worst thing in the *1440x1080i* is two additional conversions what degrade quality of original : source (mostly 1080i or 720p today ) to the reduced size and back inside of DVR/receivers, and without disclosure to customers ( the forum is not for customers - got geeks mostly ).


----------



## RasputinAXP

Bigg said:


> Unfortunately, that's the way the standards are. I wish that HD was defined by a bit rate of 19mbps CBR using MPEG-2, but then this would make it impossible to stream over most internet connections, so there's a downside to that too.


CBR? MPEG-2? Are you kidding me? There's a reason VBR and compression algorithms were invented. It's not just Internet connections that have bandwidth issues. Site to site transmission requires bandwidth, too, or we'd all have every HD channel streamed to our respective dishes.

Your precious 1920x1080p Blu-Ray media uses MPEG-4 in H.264 and VC-1, too. Or is that not HD by your personal standards because it's compressed in some way?


----------



## Bigg

James Long said:


> Standards have clearly been pointed to that define 1440x1080i as HD.
> 
> I'm glad you finally have decided to accept standards. Will you ever accept this HD standard? I have no problem with you wishing that providers used a higher standard _*of*_ HD. But please accept the standards that the industry follows.


No, 1440x1080 is HD-like high-resolution video (since high-resolution doesn't have a definition). It's not HD.



RasputinAXP said:


> CBR? MPEG-2? Are you kidding me? There's a reason VBR and compression algorithms were invented. It's not just Internet connections that have bandwidth issues. Site to site transmission requires bandwidth, too, or we'd all have every HD channel streamed to our respective dishes.
> 
> Your precious 1920x1080p Blu-Ray media uses MPEG-4 in H.264 and VC-1, too. Or is that not HD by your personal standards because it's compressed in some way?


VBR is great for files online so that you can pull the average bitrate of, say 720p video below 4mbps, and it still looks great. However, for broadcast, CBR makes a lot more sense, because VBR allows stuff like a channel or transponder worth of streams being compressed together, and ending up with "choke points" where everything will pixelate out. Even worse is subchanneling, which is plain and simple, ridiculous. Each station should broadcast If everything was CBR at 19mbps, this wouldn't be an issue. Fios does it. It would be sped'ed as MPEG-2 because going to MPEG-4 requires a transcode, which reduces quality.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Bigg said:


> No, 1440x1080 is HD-like high-resolution video (since high-resolution doesn't have a definition). It's not HD


Please go back and do some reading. You will find the ATSC standards very helpful. You will find that HD is clearly defined, within the standards. You will find that 1440x1080 is Defined as HD, but the governing body.


----------



## P Smith

GrumpyBear said:


> Please go back and do some reading. You will find the ATSC standards very helpful. You will find that HD is clearly defined, within the standards. You will find that 1440x1080 is Defined as HD, but the governing body.


That's OK, you just forgetting to mention in each post - there is no HD TV sets manufacturing today what has NATIVE 1440x1080 pixels matrix.


----------



## GrumpyBear

P Smith said:


> That's OK, you just forgetting to mention in each post - there is no HD TV sets manufacturing today what has NATIVE 1440x1080 pixels matrix.


Not forgetting at all. The post was pure and simple. HD is both defined, and 1440x1080 is definded as HD. Rather a a TV is or is not 1440x1080 isn't the point. Just because it has to be converted 1920x1080i or 1280x720p, to match a TV's native mode isn't the point. Converting a broadcast signal, to what the TV has set as native happens all the time. 
More 720p TV's out there than 1080i or 1080p, all those 1080i broadcasts have to be converted. All those Stations that Broadcast in 720p, have to be converted. Most video equipment, is 1440x1080, all those Great Nature shows, have to be converted. Don't make a big deal about the conversion, it happens on just about EVERY show, and will happen on every TV mulitple times a day.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Are LCD TVs actually 720? I know my Panny Plasma is 768.... so I guess it isn't an HD TV either  It actually converts a 720 broadcast to 1080 before it converts it back to 768.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I know I shouldn't be... but I continue to be amazed at how long these kinds of discussions continue... and like Zombies they keep coming back!


----------



## tsmacro

Stewart Vernon said:


> I know I shouldn't be... but I continue to be amazed at how long these kinds of discussions continue... and like Zombies they keep coming back!


Yeah at this point I just chalk it up to people w/ obsessive personalities that just can't help themselves.


----------



## P Smith

I thought some ppl interesting to know current bit rate of dish HD [MPEG-4/H.264]channels, so I did pick 129W tp22 with a few HBO channels and here is a plot, sample rate was 10 sec. 8 HD channels cramped into 40 Mbps mux.


----------



## whatchel1

P Smith said:


> I thought some ppl interesting to know current bit rate of dish HD [MPEG-4/H.264]channels, so I did pick 129W tp22 with a few HBO channels and here is a plot, sample rate was 10 sec. 8 HD channels cramped into 40 Mbps mux.


So if you figured it a static rate it looks like 5 Mbps mux. But looking at the VBR chart it looks like it swings from almost 7Mbps and down to as low as 3.5Mbps. I would guess that the advance predictive data rate controls which channel is given each amount for each sampling period. I wonder how often it samples and shifts the bits.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Interesting that WFN is getting more bandwidth then HBO. I would guess it depends on what the programming is at the time and that 10 sec. is not a long enough sample.


----------



## harsh

whatchel1 said:


> So if you figured it a static rate it looks like 5 Mbps mux. But looking at the VBR chart it looks like it swings from almost 7Mbps and down to as low as 3.5Mbps. I would guess that the advance predictive data rate controls which channel is given each amount for each sampling period. I wonder how often it samples and shifts the bits.


Judging by the smooth curves, it would appear to be pretty much continuous.


----------



## tvropro

I know this is the Dish HD section but does anyone know what DirecTV is doing as far as bandwidth? It would be interesting to compare the two. Hope I'm not out of place asking this here.


----------



## whatchel1

HobbyTalk said:


> Are LCD TVs actually 720? I know my Panny Plasma is 768.... so I guess it isn't an HD TV either  It actually converts a 720 broadcast to 1080 before it converts it back to 768.


768 is 720p Here are list of HD resolutions for Plasma TV's. 
HD Resolutions

* 1024×1024
* 1024×768
* 1280×768
* 1366×768
* 1280×1080
* 1920×1080
You will notice is isn't one that states 720 here, that is due to you don't see the the other 48 lines on a 720p set.


----------



## P Smith

tvropro said:


> I know this is the Dish HD section but does anyone know what DirecTV is doing as far as bandwidth? It would be interesting to compare the two. Hope I'm not out of place asking this here.


I'd like to know also. 
Unfortunately we don't have an instrument for measure the parameters of DTV proprietary DSS-3 (Ka/Ku MPEG-4) muxes as we using for other providers who stick to DVB-S and DVB-S2 world standards.


----------



## whatchel1

P Smith said:


> I'd like to know also.
> Unfortunately we don't have an instrument for measure the parameters of DTV proprietary DSS-3 (Ka/Ku MPEG-4) muxes as we using for other providers who stick to DVB-S and DVB-S2 world standards.


Yeah that sounds par for the course that D* would do theirs differently.:nono2:


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> I'd like to know also.
> Unfortunately we don't have an instrument for measure the parameters of DTV proprietary DSS-3 (Ka/Ku MPEG-4) muxes as we using for other providers who stick to DVB-S and DVB-S2 world standards.


Oh we'll the info has to be someplace. Reminds me of GI/Motorola with DC-2 being it's own offshoot system.

Any info on Direct's SD? All I know is they have about 11 channels in the mux using a 20000 SR and 6/7 FEC (weird FEC)


----------



## sigma1914

tvropro said:


> ...
> 
> Any info on Direct's SD? All I know is they have about 11 channels in the mux using a 20000 SR and 6/7 FEC (weird FEC)


I can sum it up pretty easy...DirecTV SD sucks pretty bad on HD sets.


----------



## whatchel1

sigma1914 said:


> I can sum it up pretty easy...DirecTV SD sucks pretty bad on HD sets.


So does E* but I feel that way on SD no matter what.


----------



## P Smith

tvropro said:


> Oh we'll the info has to be someplace. Reminds me of GI/Motorola with DC-2 being it's own offshoot system.
> 
> Any info on Direct's SD? All I know is they have about 11 channels in the mux using a 20000 SR and 6/7 FEC (weird FEC)


Seen 7/8 actually - you'll need a tuner with blind scan to get factual FEC - SW-1 could be the instrument.

As to SD info - easy; first, you could find some numbers like channels per tpn ratio from gct's regular postings here - DTV maps; second, just tell us what tpn or channel you want to probe for bandwidth allocation.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> Seen 7/8 actually - you'll need a tuner with blind scan to get factual FEC - SW-1 could be the instrument.
> 
> As to SD info - easy; first, you could find some numbers like channels per tpn ratio from gct's regular postings here - DTV maps; second, just tell us what tpn or channel you want to probe for bandwidth allocation.


So you have the tools for SD Direct cool. Let's start with TR 27 on 101 see what that shows. I wonder how lean they go without statmux running and what a peak is.

I want to see what Disney E on Direct SD runs, that's on 27 according to an old Direct receiver I have here that will show me the transponder number for any channel. The DC-2 SD master on C band runs a minimum of 6 kb's and has excellent picture quality. I wonder if Direct runs more than 2 kb's. Disney seems a little bit sharper in SD than most and I'm curious if thats because the master is so good or is Direct giving some bandwidth to it.


----------



## P Smith

Here is the data: you can take VPID/APID from HTML - just subtract 1000h and look at 2D pie; total mux is 30 Mbps (the HTML is not original, it's converted from DSS to DVB ). DISe has VPID 82h APID 83h and taking 2.85 Mbps bandwidth.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> Here is the data: you can take VPID/APID from HTML - just subtract 1000h and look at 2D pie; total mux is 30 Mbps (the HTML is not original, it's converted from DSS to DVB ). DISe has VPID 82h APID 83h and taking 2.85 Mbps bandwidth.


Thanks for the data. 2.85 is higher then I thought they would use. Isn't around 2 the norm for the high compression of pizza SD? On your data is that with VBR (statmux) or is that the basic low cutoff of the channel?

If you don't mind can you run tests on a few more transponders and post the data? If so look at Tr 6, 15 and 19.

Thanks again this is cool


----------



## P Smith

It was just one snapshot, I can't engage TSReader to create graph with lines for muxes without PAT/PMT (that DSStoDVB applet doesn't cover all VPIDs/APIDs - only one selected).
So, those values floating - how wide the swinging ? It would require to sit and watch by human eyes.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> It was just one snapshot, I can't engage TSReader to create graph with lines for muxes without PAT/PMT (that DSStoDVB applet doesn't cover all VPIDs/APIDs - only one selected).
> So, those values floating - how wide the swinging ? It would require to sit and watch by human eyes.


Okay then it at least tells us something. If you can do a grap of those other transponders and post them here it would be great. Thanks.

Can you do C band DC-2? If so go to G-14 transponder 11 and do a snapshot of data. SR is 19510 FEC is 3/4, Digicipher 2. That is ABC family E and Disney E SD master which is excellent.


----------



## P Smith

Not ready for C band measures, but requested DSS transponders done.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> Not ready for C band measures, but requested DSS transponders done.


Thanks so much for the data. I want to study these. What would be interesting now is to compare Disney E SD on Direct to Dishes SD. Anyone know what transponder it's on on the western arc since that is Mpeg 2 so let's compare apples to apples?


----------



## James Long

tvropro said:


> Thanks so much for the data. I want to study these. What would be interesting now is to compare Disney E SD on Direct to Dishes SD. Anyone know what transponder it's on on the western arc since that is Mpeg 2 so let's compare apples to apples?


Disney East SD is on 119° TP 12. (119.0W 12.38438 L SR: 20000 7/8 FEC QPSK DVB-S)
There should be 12 SD feeds and 12 audio feeds on that transponder ... some mapped to multiple channel numbers.


----------



## P Smith

tvropro said:


> Thanks so much for the data. I want to study these. What would be interesting now is to compare Disney E SD on Direct to Dishes SD. Anyone know what transponder it's on on the western arc since that is Mpeg 2 so let's compare apples to apples?


You could invite photoman76 to participate in the thread, he is easy with C-band sats.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> You could invite photoman76 to participate in the thread, he is easy with C-band sats.


I'm new around here how do you invite someone?

I was studying the graphs, Direct actually gives a good chunk of the pie to Disney E & W SD. The west coast feed only has 9 video channels in the mux which surprised me. The east coast feed has 11 and 2 sonics. It looks like Direct has some bandwidth to spare. Better for the viewers.


----------



## P Smith

tvropro said:


> I'm new around here how do you invite someone?
> ...


I mean drop him PM on other site(s) with URL to the thread, he is old member here http://www.dbstalk.com/member.php?u=22008


----------



## P Smith

tvropro said:


> Thanks so much for the data. I want to study these. What would be interesting now is to compare Disney E SD on Direct to Dishes SD. Anyone know what transponder it's on on the western arc since that is Mpeg 2 so let's compare apples to apples?


This time it was easiest request. Seems to me 10 sec sampling is creating correct graph, I did try 100 ms - no spikes registered. Perhaps 1 min interval would be good enough to show 6 hrs span to cover movies, ads, slates.


----------



## ehren

I remember a Charlie Chat back when Dish first had Discovery HD on 61.5

Some guy won the trivia question for the HD standard and the answer was 1920x1080 LOL.


----------



## P Smith

Many of us remember that time when HD been in MPEG-2 and took 13-18 Mbps, when it was only 2-3 HD channels per tpn.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> This time it was easiest request. Seems to me 10 sec sampling is creating correct graph, I did try 100 ms - no spikes registered. Perhaps 1 min interval would be good enough to show 6 hrs span to cover movies, ads, slates.


Looks like Direct has Dish beat in SD as far as bandwidth per channel goes. Too bad we can't compare the HD. I remember a post back at Satellite Guys said the at the C band master of Disney was supplying 6 mbps for Mpeg 2 DC-2 SD. In that mux there is 4 channels Disney East , ABC Family East and 2 sets of color bars. I attached a couple pictures I took of the master feed with my camera from my Sharp AQUOS HDTV running smart stretch mode. You can notice how clear and artifact free they are.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> Many of us remember that time when HD been in MPEG-2 and took 13-18 Mbps, when it was only 2-3 HD channels per tpn.


And now DISH's single most packed transponder has 9 HDs (although all the others have 8 or less). MPEG4 helps. 8PSK instead of QPSK certainly helps. More powerful transponders help. Gotta keep perspective.


----------



## P Smith

Technically that's right, but the whole initiative came from seller not for customer's good. I mean the goal is cramp [compress] as much as viewers [JSP] would 'eat'. The HD in MPEG-2 came down to over-compressed H.264 and did a step away from a widely accepted standard Blu-Ray disks, not a step close to it. To many artifacts and macro-blocking during fast changing scenes ... Static picture is OK, but big part with fast movement ... Really, with MPEG-4 it become watered down 'bourbon'.


----------



## tvropro

P Smith said:


> Technically that's right, but the whole initiative came from seller not for customer's good. I mean the goal is cramp [compress] as much as viewers [JSP] would 'eat'. The HD in MPEG-2 came down to over-compressed H.264 and did a step away from a widely accepted standard Blu-Ray disks, not a step close to it. To many artifacts and macro-blocking during fast changing scenes ... Static picture is OK, but big part with fast movement ... Really, with MPEG-4 it become watered down 'bourbon'.


It will always boil down to the content providers getting the most bang for the buck. The bean counters continually look for more and more profits for the company at the expense of quality. The consumer is never considered in the formula.

How far can they push the envelope before the mass complain... we will have to see. They can sell anything to the fools with trendy buzz words such as 100% digital. But then there is a sucker born every minute.


----------



## P Smith

I can't believe how those companies treat own customers. 
It's a service for deliver a content to us !

Imagine milk watered down by driver who move the gallons, or gasoline blended with cheap kind.

While other services oriented to customer satisfaction trying to attract ppl by 'super-bit' quality DVD or 30% more chips in a bag or re-release same movie in BR and soon 4k format.

O tempora o mores !

It should be class action suit against companies who is *altering down *an audio-visual content !

Why a company who is own the 'pipe' must dictate and bring down quality of transporting product ?
So, media printing houses ( CD, DVD) could turn down bit-rate because they want to print them fast and want make more ?

Who need the meaningless competition for 100, 200 HD channels if each particular customer don't need them all same time ? - hints: a la carte and IPTV.
Why initial start of satellite HD programming was *better* then current one despite new technology and new satellites ?

Why the 'plumber' is making final decision ? Is owning the pipe constituting decreasing value/quality of the 'water' ?


----------



## James Long

Welcome to the industry!

Everything DISH and DirecTV are doing fits within industry standards. The industry wishes to remain profitable so I doubt that they will change the standards to eliminate the bandwidth saving compression techniques companies have used.

If a company wishes to come out with a "high quality" service they are free to do so. I would not expect such a company to survive. At least not on the level of the big companies that provide quantity over quality.

Most customers don't care about how the sausage is made. As long as it looks halfway decent on their TV and it isn't dropping out on them they will accept the picture quality they get. Bit rates are for nerds.


----------



## P Smith

But there are standards and rules - you can't use dog meat in the sausage, you can't decrease meat %% in the sausage, you can't substitute gas 96 with 72.

Actually, those companies who are *delivering* like cable, sat etc cheating using loopholes where no standards established for altering audio/video content (compression rates).
You know what grasp on quality attempted by HDNet.


----------



## Tweakophyte

Dumb question... does anybody send a high-quality signal anymore? I love the Dish interface, but I am disappointed with the PQ these days.


----------



## sigma1914

Tweakophyte said:


> Dumb question... does anybody send a high-quality signal anymore? I love the Dish interface, but I am disappointed with the PQ these days.


Fios is pretty nice.


----------



## P Smith

Tweakophyte said:


> Dumb question... does anybody send a high-quality signal anymore? I love the Dish interface, but I am disappointed with the PQ these days.


Take FVOD titles, especially in 1080p - should be in 1920x1080x24 with good [15 Mbps] bitrate. Costly? I know.


----------



## audiomaster

I wish Dish would give us the ability to trim unwanted program length from the front and back of our recorded programs.


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> Worst thing in the *1440x1080i* is two additional conversions what degrade quality of original : source (mostly 1080i or 720p today ) to the reduced size ...


Not sure if I've get you right but, speaking of source, you're talking about resolution on both HDCam and DVCProHD acquisition format?


----------



## whatchel1

good said:


> Not sure if I've get you right but, speaking of source, you're talking about resolution on both HDCam and DVCProHD acquisition format?


I don't think he is. You are correct as both of those camera formats are 1440 X 1080.


----------



## P Smith

good said:


> Not sure if I've get you right but, speaking of source, you're talking about resolution on both HDCam and DVCProHD acquisition format?


You should forget this, it's from previous century. 

Seriously, check cameras/production equipment/archives of content providers which format they are using NOW !


----------



## Hoosier205

Regardless of what resolution the content was filmed in, it is being distributed by production teams and broadcasters in either 1280×720 or 1920×1080. Dish Network altering it to 1440x1080, coupled with low bitrates, just adds to the degradation. It's visible, it's obvious, it's factual.


----------



## P Smith

Some ppl prefer to nitpicking words/numbers and not look out to a window, sorry - TV screen.


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> Seriously, check cameras/production equipment/archives of content providers which format they are using NOW !


 What make you think that I don't know? You shouldn't jump so fast to conclusion ...

And, leaving behind numbers and speaking of screens, some say that most important for viewers are contrast ratio, color saturation, color accuracy and,at the end, resolution ... and, btw, is not vertical resolution that matter most?

How low are biterates now?


----------



## P Smith

Since you're new on forums - simple advise: read the thread and follow URLs from posts.
The answer is done on previous pages.


----------



## P Smith

good said:


> ...
> And, leaving behind numbers and speaking of screens, some say that most important for viewers are contrast ratio, color saturation, color accuracy and,at the end, resolution ... and, btw, is not vertical resolution that matter most?


While I'm for all that important parameters, Vres is one cornerstones of right picture. Blurring details will never be positive factor of good picture.


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> ... read the thread and follow URLs from posts.
> The answer is done on previous pages.


I've seen your graphic with hd channels and, boy!:eek2:, 1440 is hardly the problem :nono2:... 
That's what happen with biterates when you're in a mad race for counting more hd channels ... using DVB-S modulation! Even the best (contribution) encoders can't go below 10 Mbps without producing noticeable artifacts ...


----------



## HobbyTalk

Bandwidth is limited. The vast majority of people would take 80 slightly blurred channels (unnoticeable to most of them) over 50 slightly clearer channels.


----------



## good

HobbyTalk said:


> Bandwidth is limited.


 So is Earth.



HobbyTalk said:


> The vast majority of people would take 80 slightly blurred channels (unnoticeable to most of them) over 50 slightly clearer channels.


 Generally speaking, it's true that most people see, but only a handful will notice ... but, than again, "slightly blurred" at those biterates?!? :nono: I seriously doubt that.


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Generally speaking, it's true that most people see, but only a handful will notice ... but, than again, "slightly blurred" at those biterates?!? :nono: I seriously doubt that.


Have you seen it or is your opinion based only on numbers?


----------



## good

James Long said:


> Have you seen it or is your opinion based only on numbers?


Dish HD channels no. I've seen other HD channels at different biterates. From what I've seen, channels with content 1080i and below 10 Mbps show visible artifacts, especially at fast movement, camera pan, sudden image change ...
I asume that what's well below, must be a little more than "slightly blurred".
Moreover, if anyone wants to check, it will find out that others, using S2, put also only 8 (sometimes 9) channels in one tp and S2 gives a biterate around 65 Mbps (8PSK 3/4).
I've also mentioned something about encoders ...


----------



## P Smith

good said:


> Dish HD channels no. I've seen other HD channels at different biterates. From what I've seen, channels with content 1080i and below 10 Mbps show visible artifacts, especially at fast movement, camera pan, sudden image change ...
> I asume that what's well below, must be a little more than "slightly blurred".
> Moreover, if anyone wants to check, it will find out that others, using S2, put also only 8 (sometimes 9) channels in one tp and S2 gives a biterate around 65 Mbps (8PSK 3/4).
> I've also mentioned something about encoders ...


I wouldn't say 65/8 ~8 Mbps per channel is good number as you pointed to 10 Mbps is critical for dynamic episodes.


----------



## HobbyTalk

It would appear that Dish is happy being in the middle. FIOS and possibly D* being better with cable and uVerse being worse. I personally haven't seen where D* is better (neighbor has it but it's hard compare unless side-by-side) but I will defer to the few that claim it is better in some cases.


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't say 65/8 ~8 Mbps per channel is good number as you pointed to 10 Mbps is critical for dynamic episodes.


Since I'm new of forum :gott:, maybe I should follow footsteps of some "classics" :up: and say that "nitpicking words/numbers" buys you first class ticket to ... nowhere, just because simple math won't do it.

But, since I'm *good* :righton:, I wouldn't say that. As your chart shows, biterates are variable, 'cause statistic studies show that channels rarely encounter fast action scenes (i.e. requiring higher biterates) in the same time. That's why they came up with "statistical multiplexing", where several channels share the same bandwidth, obviously finite, 'cause spectrum of the transmission and that must not vary. Thus, if let's say one channel has "dynamic episode" and obviously in need for increased bitrate, the mux allocate more bandwidth by instructing the encoder of that specific channel (if the channels content is studied before and grouping them is based on that, and also bandwidth is enough, you'll experience peaks of even 15-16 Mbps in some). Obviously than again, this isn't possible if other channels are "having" the same needs, that's why what I've said before in between brackets is also important.

This idea for that kind of multiplexing was around before (and implemented) in telecommunication industry, long before IP became an real (and cheaper) alternative, when reliable transport was TDM ... which still reigns.


----------



## tampa8

When I compare OTA to Dish on my Vip612, It actually varies as to the results. 

From a viewing distance, if you really look critically, only sometimes could I say I see a difference, and then only on a closeup of a face, and we are talking an extremely slight difference even if there is one. Other times I cannot see a difference.

If I stand up close, more often I do see the OTA ever so slightly more sharp than from the receiver. But even then, not all the time. And as some have mentioned, not all OTA is equal. My OTA NBC channel is consistently sharper than my CBS for instance during live programming. That is more noticeable than the Dish/OTA comparison.

Overall, if you tell me Dish has less resolution or whatever than OTA, I can't dispute that with facts, in fact I might agree. But to my eyes, from a normal viewing distance, I just don't really see a difference.


----------



## P Smith

tampa8, you must disclose a model of your TV before post your observations


----------



## good

tampa8 said:


> Overall, if you tell me Dish has less resolution or whatever than OTA, I can't dispute that with facts, in fact I might agree. But to my eyes, from a normal viewing distance, I just don't really see a difference.


Resolution is hardly the problem.
But if you're happy with what you see and there are no annoying artifacts, you shouldn't worry at all.


----------



## P Smith

I can't stand those ppl who are trolling out by own personal perseption TECHNICAL ASPECTS of HD signal !

Then why you worrying about watered down whiskey or milk or gold on your finger or other product ?!

The HD signal described by standard and verifying by those parameters, not how you like it or dislike. It not final argument here. It not an argument here.
You can be satisfied with low-ball equipment and no one will tell you it's wrong.
But you bringing PERSONAL preferences in mass ? Why ? What the value it have if other person is not satisfying ?
That's why the signal and whiskey should be up to its standard.


----------



## Hoosier205

P Smith said:


> I can't stand those ppl who are trolling out by own personal perseption TECHNICAL ASPECTS of HD signal !
> 
> Then why you worrying about watered down whiskey or milk or gold on your finger or other product ?!
> 
> The HD signal described by standard and verifying by those parameters, not how you like it or dislike. It not final argument here. It not an argument here.
> You can be satisfied with low-ball equipment and no one will tell you it's wrong.
> But you bringing PERSONAL preferences in mass ? Why ? What the value it have if other person is not satisfying ?
> That's why the signal and whiskey should be up to its standard.


More people might respond...if they could actually understand your posts.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> The HD signal described by standard and verifying by those parameters, not how you like it or dislike. It not final argument here. It not an argument here.


I agree. The HD standards SUPPORT what DISH is doing (and supported it when DirecTV used the same process). Compression techniques are simply a fact of life when dealing with HD distribution.

But in the end it _*IS*_ how the output is perceived by the viewer that really matter. Millions of DISH customers with HD equipment are watching DISH's HD channels. How many know the first thing about the standards involved or what bitrate or compression is good or bad? All they know is what they see.

Satellite and cable providers are in the business of delivering a signal acceptable to their customers. At the end of the day, if the signals are acceptable that is all that matters.



> That's why the signal and whiskey should be up to its standard.


Perhaps it is not up to the standard some people want it to be ... but it does meet the industry accepted standards for HD. It is still whiskey.


----------



## P Smith

Well, if you did work for engineering [EE] and seen how ummm, we're testing signals, etc then you should know the postulate - results are independent of the tester, but depend on device-under-test [DUT] and test equipment deviation.

OK, lets say we are in that room where the encoders operating ( I recall I did post the point ), you are this shift engineer, something goes out of spec ("what spec you'll ask ? - I should follow my instincts and sustain the processes, not the '****ty' specs ! I see how it should be by own eyes !" Right ?) - how you'll handle it ? By looking to the 20" control monitor in that room ? Or will check specialized equipment what do show objective characteristics of current signal/channel ?


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> OK, lets say we are in that room where the encoders operating ( I recall I did post the point ), you are this shift engineer, something goes out of spec ("what spec you'll ask ? - I should follow my instincts and sustain the processes, not the '****ty' specs ! I see how it should be by own eyes !" Right ?) - how you'll handle it ? By looking to the 20" control monitor in that room ? Or will check specialized equipment what do show objective characteristics of current signal/channel ?


In that room I'd follow the instructions given by the employer. If they pay my paycheck, they set the specs ... and while I might disagree with the specifications followed, and might engage in conversation designed to improve the specifications, it would still be my job to follow the approved specs. If corporate says put eight or nine HD channels on a transponder and run them with a specific setting the uplink technician has little choice in the matter. I won't pretend otherwise.

So now we find ourselves outside of that room ... away from the encoders and a lot closer to the consumer decoders. In the position of the millions of customers who do not have access to specialized equipment. They have decide if the content and quality is worth what they are paying based only on what they can observe.

A few people might be swayed by some statistics they found on the Internet ... perhaps even the statistics in this thread (which can be found on the Internet). But at the end of the day, if they are happy with what they see on the TV (and how much they are paying for it) that is all that matters.


----------



## P Smith

So, it's become corporate policies/rules - ie subjective and driven by other meaning then signal quality ...

Then we came to the point, if I'd like a cognac I will pay $xxx, if someone like a bourbon he will pay $xx; but who should pay $xxx for bootleg watered down spirit, same fair price and be agree - yeah that owner is struggled with approved oak barrels, we must are satisfied with the sh!t. 
I used as figure of speech, please don't dissect the example itself.


----------



## tampa8

P Smith said:


> tampa8, you must disclose a model of your TV before post your observations


I don't think I "must" do anything before I post, but I will.  LG LCD 46"


----------



## tampa8

good said:


> Resolution is hardly the problem.
> But if you're happy with what you see and there are no annoying artifacts, you shouldn't worry at all.


Which is why I said "Resolution or whatever." And you are right and is what I was getting at. I can see no appreciable difference, no matter how much technical info is available that might dispute that so I don't have to worry.

Reminds me of a home theater forum many years ago that had settings by an expert for my rear projection TV. I posted that one of them, Edge Sharpness, looked better to me on low, rather than off as suggested. The expert had all kinds of AVIA pics and reasons I was wrong. To my surprise, many posted they agreed with me after reading my post when they tried it, and thought the picture, especially words/letters were indeed better. Sometimes numbers lie.....lol


----------



## P Smith

tampa8 said:


> I don't think I "must" do anything before I post, but I will.  LG LCD 46"


If not, then anything what you post based on pure subjective opinion.

BTW, you didn't answer again - your model.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> So, it's become corporate policies/rules - ie subjective and driven by other meaning then signal quality ...


In essence, yes. The ownership of DISH, DirecTV or a cable system chooses to do it any way they want (or any way the board allows them to, if so constrained). The decision of bitrates and channels per transponder is not decided by the guy or gal in the room monitoring quality of transmitted signal (if you want to limit discussions to the guy in the room at the uplink).

If you want to talk about the guy or gal in the room paying a satellite bill all most of them have is a TV. What TV varies. And most of them could not care less about the numbers as long as their picture - as perceived by them - is clear.


----------



## HobbyTalk

What I want to know is what HD "spec" does Dish not follow?


----------



## P Smith

Actually, by result of the discussion (what comes up again and again) we have big dark loophole where is no standards for quality of HD/SD picture, so that allow those companies do anything what they want.

So, we will struck with our Kuros/BR disks forever. 

[Oh, what the hell DVD/BD publisher doing ?! The should follow that trench what DTV/dish/cable dig for them.]


----------



## HobbyTalk

So you are talking about a matrix that has no spec and it is all just your personal opinion?


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> Actually, by result of the discussion (what comes up again and again) we have big dark loophole where is no standards for quality of HD/SD picture, so that allow those companies do anything what they want.


Standards apply and DISH and DirecTV are meeting those standards. The industry has set the standard to where the industry needs it to be. While some (not thinking you) have wanted to write their own standard that exceeds the industry's or apply standards that were written for other mediums than satellite broadcast, it doesn't change the fact that the industry standards are being met.

The standards actually allow more compression, including resolution reduction, than is currently being done to HD satellite broadcast. Trying to fit big things in a small space is a challenge ... especially when the average Joe or Jane customer just wants more big things - and different big things - not better quality big things.

This leaves the market open for BluRay and others to provide a high quality (and higher cost) alternative to satellite/cable broadcast.


----------



## good

James Long said:


> But in the end it _*IS*_ how the output is perceived by the viewer that really matter.


You hit the nail wright in the head but, unfortunately, some people doesn't understand (or don't accept) that, in such corporate business, commercial side dictates the rules or, simply put it: sell more with minimum investment (hint: recession is still here).

For those who'd like to pay $xxx for some brand cognac or something, simple advice: turn your dish to broadcasters. Because they has just a few channels on one hand, having a different (read real) respect for people, and knowing that their signals shall be f**ked one way or the other, usually they use sufficient bandwidth, with CBR and also they might use contribution encoders (a different breed).

Talking about "big dark loophole where is no standards for quality of HD/SD picture", actually there are some ... in Europe, e.g. EBU - Tech 3334, from which I quote:

_"- For the 1080i/25 HDTV format and horizontal sub-sampling to 1440 samples a minimum
bitrate of 12 Mbit/s is recommended
- For the 1080i/25 HDTV format and no horizontal sub-sampling a minimum bitrate of
12 - 14 Mbit/s is recommended"_

... and, so what?!? Obviously that doesn't stop BBC broadcasting BBC HD channel in UK at 1440x1080i/25 ... at 9 and a half or so Mbps! Some rules can be bend ... others can be broken.


----------



## HobbyTalk

The local stations should also be blamed. Most in our area have 2 sub-channels so you've already lost 1/2 the available bandwidth even using OTA.


----------



## P Smith

Is there FCC petition's writer ?

We could begin a campain for new petition to assign grades to HD stream.
It is not normal when "HD" label assigned to Blu-Ray disc and sat/cable providers shamelessly using same name for their mediocre 'hd' channels.

You will never agree if a cognac labeled as XO while it VS !


----------



## James Long

The FCC is too busy not doing their actual job to add more responsibility to their plate.

For OTA broadcast, stations must use one of 18 specific encodings for their streams ... but only ONE stream per station needs to be properly encoded and available for public viewing. Stations are free to encrypt or use other encodings to their heart's desire (even running data feeds) as long as there is one available non-encrypted subchannel using one of the 18 specified encodings. No HD feed is required.

For satellite broadcast as long as they don't interfere with other licensed broadcasters or exceed their licenses companies are pretty much free to do as they wish. They could even transmit a widescreen SD feed and upconvert it at the receiver. It is a closed system. There are some rules requiring fairness between broadcasters in the same local market ... equal bitrate availability ... but no minimum standard for HD or SD.

You might have better luck with the FTC than the FCC ...


----------



## P Smith

OK. Any FTC petition's experienced writer ?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

It would be tilting at windmills at best... The standards are what they are because that was the best that most in the field would agree on... we should consider ourselves lucky that it is as strictly defined as it is!


----------



## HobbyTalk

P Smith said:


> Is there FCC petition's writer ?
> 
> We could begin a campain for new petition to assign grades to HD stream.
> It is not normal when "HD" label assigned to Blu-Ray disc and sat/cable providers shamelessly using same name for their mediocre 'hd' channels.
> 
> You will never agree if a cognac labeled as XO while it VS !


The FCC or FTC does not set HD standards.


----------



## good

Stewart Vernon said:


> It would be tilting at windmills at best...


You couldn't said it better :righton:... and for those who want to "begin a campaign for new petition to assign grades to HD stream", here's a simple advice ('cause you need to be prepared :grin: check out blog pages (few miles long as I recall) on BBC HD picture quality "war":beatdeadhorse:. Some flash news (if matters): we're talking about one public service broadcaster! :blowout:... and you wouldn't want to know how much is the annual fee :goofygrin...
I won't reveal the outcome :nono2:... but recently they've launched BBC ONE HD:icon_da: and, just for fun, guess at what resolution and biterate ...?
Good luck!

btw, if the "army" gathered :group: is "strong" enough, they might get a free visit in some DBS headend !danger:... that'll be the day! !rolling


----------



## P Smith

Some ppl happy as a pig in a mud.  So what ? Keep going ...


----------



## good

If that's all you understand, I feel sorry for you ...


----------



## P Smith

I mean that ppl who're excite with the mediocre "HD-Lite" picture and I'm sorry for them.


----------



## HobbyTalk

I guess I would want to know is where can full uncompressed HD be found?


----------



## Jeff_DML

HobbyTalk said:


> I guess I would want to know is where can full uncompressed HD be found?


on your HDMI link or component

stating the obvious but people should not be comparing MPEG2 bitrates with what satellite is using, AVC. Or if you do the accepted efficiency rate is 50% saving over MPEG2 so divide the MPEG2 rates by 2 to compare.


----------



## paja

HobbyTalk said:


> I guess I would want to know is where can full uncompressed HD be found?


OTA


----------



## Jeff_DML

paja said:


> OTA


:nono2:


----------



## P Smith

Jeff_DML said:


> on your HDMI link or component
> 
> stating the obvious but people should not be comparing MPEG2 bitrates with what satellite is using, AVC. Or if you do the accepted efficiency rate is 50% saving over MPEG2 so divide the MPEG2 rates by 2 to compare.


Just one note for avoid confusion:
*H.264/MPEG-4 PART 10 AVC* is the same *AVC* as you mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC


----------



## P Smith

HobbyTalk said:


> I guess I would want to know is where can full uncompressed HD be found?


Seems to me the question is pure theoretical. 
OK, right after CMOS sensor in a video camera.
All DVD, BD, sat, cable, etc transmits COMPRESSED (later - *OVER* COMPRESSED) signal.


----------



## HobbyTalk

P Smith said:


> Seems to me the question is pure theoretical.
> OK, right after CMOS sensor in a video camera.
> All DVD, BD, sat, cable, etc transmits COMPRESSED (later - *OVER* COMPRESSED) signal.


So you are chasing a fantasy then  Or are you trying to force YOUR standards on everyone else?


----------



## P Smith

You are the one who don't want to protect us - customers !

It's profitable for the companies keep the 'mud' around HD quality to prevent creating standards. They would make more and more HD-Lite ( see what is SD constitute now !).

I told many times - a cognac could be VS/VSOP/XO and dedicated committee watch its quality by some standards ( same as for red wine, etc ), so anyone wouldn't be fooled ( as we fooled with cable/sat HD quality ).

It would be easy to get if if you will go with an analogy: cognac vs HD signal, from a label: age/size/% vs vert resolution/horiz resolution, but behind the very limited restrictions exists a lot of quality parameters what specialists knows. And you're not anywhere close to that group ( and never will be ) who do testing wines or test HD signal.

See a post#186 ...feel the joy.


----------



## good

HobbyTalk said:


> So you are chasing a fantasy then  Or are you trying to force YOUR standards on everyone else?


You're completely missing the point, unintentionally ... or deliberately. The subject brought under discussion is HD quality *after* compression, i.e. what reach users home.
It's completely false the fact (if your implying) that only in uncompressed signals we can speak of quality ...

I've said it before , I'll say it once again: if you're happy with what you see, you shouldn't worry about a thing :biggrin: ...


----------



## HobbyTalk

Nope, I think you are missing the point. 99.5% of the people are satisfied with the picture quality they are getting. You are looking to set some artificial standard to suit YOUR opinion and ignore what the majority are satisfied with. Sure, everyone would like better but very few are willing to pay for it. I'd love some super duper 65" TV but I'm not going to pay 5 grand or more for it.

If there is such a demand for higher quality video you should start your own pay TV service to provide that quality. I am sure that millions of people would flock to it and you'd become billionaires. Should be easy to get venture capital for it since there is such demand.


----------



## good

HobbyTalk said:


> 99.5% of the people are satisfied with the picture quality they are getting.


 That's according to "HobbyTalk" study :grin:, isn't it?



HobbyTalk said:


> You are looking to set some artificial standard to suit YOUR opinion and ignore what the majority are satisfied with.


 Really, do I? :lol: Well ... obviously you know better than me 

Chill out man, you're absolutely right, watch tv and don't worry about a thing


----------



## HobbyTalk

Chill? This is fun to punch holes in your argument  We have maybe a half dozen people here that have a sight issue with HD. We have 2 people that have a huge problem. That is out of maybe 100 million viewers of HD. Heck, a large portion of people that have HD TVs think they are watching HD when they only have SD service. So, when you going to start your own pay TV service? :lol:


----------



## whatchel1

good said:


> You're completely missing the point, unintentionally ... or deliberately. The subject brought under discussion is HD quality *after* compression, i.e. what reach users home.
> It's completely false the fact (if your implying) that only in uncompressed signals we can speak of quality ...
> 
> I've said it before , I'll say it once again: if you're happy with what you see, you shouldn't worry about a thing :biggrin: ...


This is really to the reference that Hobby Talk is implying uncompressed signals. There are no such thing as uncompressed signals in the digital video world. Not even Blu-Ray is uncompressed.


----------



## good

HobbyTalk said:


> This is fun to punch holes in your argument


 Which is what?:icon_an:



HobbyTalk said:


> That is out of maybe 100 million viewers of HD.


 I didn't know that Dish has so many subscribers! :grin:
... uuhhh, my bad, sorry! you must be speaking on behalf of viewers from all over the continent ...



whatchel1 said:


> There are no such thing as uncompressed signals in the digital video world.


 Speaking from experience?


----------



## whatchel1

good said:


> Which is what?:icon_an:
> 
> I didn't know that Dish has so many subscribers! :grin:
> ... uuhhh, my bad, sorry! you must be speaking on behalf of viewers from all over the continent ...
> 
> Speaking from experience?


Yes look at the MPEG standards.


----------



## inazsully

The unenlightened majority of subs out there may indeed be satisfied with what they are watching. But that's a terrible argument against lobbying for better PQ and higher definition. Those same people were quite satisfied without 3D but it's slowly being incorporated into the main stream displays, this with almost no content. 3D blu-ray players are everywhere but where are the 3D blu-ray movies? Most people think they are satisfied (SD, black and white, 2 channel stereo, VCR's, tape decks, transistor radios, PONG, dial up, cable TV). It seems to me that if the masses are content with the broadcast status quo that's a shame, but if the folks on sites like this are content then that's just plain sad.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inazsully said:


> The unenlightened majority of subs out there may indeed be satisfied with what they are watching. But that's a terrible argument against lobbying for better PQ and higher definition. Those same people were quite satisfied without 3D but it's slowly being incorporated into the main stream displays, this with almost no content. 3D blu-ray players are everywhere but where are the 3D blu-ray movies? Most people think they are satisfied (SD, black and white, 2 channel stereo, VCR's, tape decks, transistor radios, PONG, dial up, cable TV). It seems to me that if the masses are content with the broadcast status quo that's a shame, but if the folks on sites like this are content then that's just plain sad.


You seem to be confusing contentment with acceptance and understanding of reality.

I would love to have the best quality video + audio for free all the time... but that's not going to happen... so where is the negotiation point?

I'm mostly happy for what bang I get for my satellite buck in terms of the overall quality and quantity. I know I could get better quality with less channels... but which channels would I want to sacrifice?

Blu-ray offers the best quality but even that is compressed and there is a variable quality experience from movie to movie so not all Blu-rays are the best possible quality either.

And we are a LONG way away from ever seeing uncompressed high-definition video/audio transmissions... and likely we'll never see that because there will be a tipping point we are constantly chasing... As the technology improves to deliver better and better bitrates and data faster and faster... we will want more resolution.

So... before we ever reach the technical ability to deliver uncompressed HD video... we will be looking at compressed 4K or 8K transmissions... and then people will say "This compressed 8K looks barely better than 4K"... and the discussion will continue and we'll always be chasing perfection.


----------



## good

whatchel1 said:


> Yes


Experience in what?!?

First, if you don't know something, that doesn't mean that it don't exist.

Second, uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure ... which is, btw, a part of "the digital video world", not some far away galaxy or something. 
You shouldn't believe me, you should buy a book :read:.

"no such animal" ... that reminds me of a story with a ******* came from the bottom of the country in big city to see the zoo. There, with all the animals, he suddenly he see the giraffe. He stared at her hours :ewww: and, at the end, he exclaimed with certitude :bang: "there is NO such animal!" :lol:...


----------



## good

Stewart Vernon said:


> ... acceptance and understanding of reality.


In order to do that, shouldn't be appropriate to compare with others?


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Second, uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure ... which is, btw, a part of "the digital video world", not some far away galaxy or something.
> You shouldn't believe me, you should buy a book :read:.


Would you read it if we bought one for you? Here's a thought on "uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure":


P Smith said:


> HobbyTalk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I would want to know is where can full uncompressed HD be found?
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me the question is pure theoretical.
> OK, right after CMOS sensor in a video camera.
> All DVD, BD, sat, cable, etc transmits COMPRESSED (later - *OVER* COMPRESSED) signal.
Click to expand...

So "allover the broadcast studio infrastructure" ends inside each camera.


----------



## good

James Long said:


> So "allover the broadcast studio infrastructure" ends inside each camera.


You should really buy a book too, cause "a thought" doesn't change reality ...


----------



## James Long

good said:


> You should really buy a book too, cause "a thought" doesn't change reality ...


So ... buy your own book and prove P Smith wrong.
Compression is everywhere ... deal with it.


----------



## good

James Long said:


> So ... buy your own book and prove P Smith wrong.
> Compression is everywhere ... deal with it.


First, I don't have to prove anything to anybody ... and nobody doesn't have to prove me anything. It just doesn't work this way.

Second, did I exclude compression? Is that something I said?


----------



## inazsully

Stewart Vernon said:


> You seem to be confusing contentment with acceptance and understanding of reality.
> 
> I would love to have the best quality video + audio for free all the time... but that's not going to happen... so where is the negotiation point?
> 
> I'm mostly happy for what bang I get for my satellite buck in terms of the overall quality and quantity. I know I could get better quality with less channels... but which channels would I want to sacrifice?
> 
> Blu-ray offers the best quality but even that is compressed and there is a variable quality experience from movie to movie so not all Blu-rays are the best possible quality either.
> 
> And we are a LONG way away from ever seeing uncompressed high-definition video/audio transmissions... and likely we'll never see that because there will be a tipping point we are constantly chasing... As the technology improves to deliver better and better bitrates and data faster and faster... we will want more resolution.
> 
> So... before we ever reach the technical ability to deliver uncompressed HD video... we will be looking at compressed 4K or 8K transmissions... and then people will say "This compressed 8K looks barely better than 4K"... and the discussion will continue and we'll always be chasing perfection.


Stewart, I never used the words contentment along with acceptance. I used contentment along with satisfied. In my mind content and satisfied are pretty much the same. To me compression basically means squeezing a big thing enough to make it fit into a smaller thing. As long as I like the finished product I don't care how much they compress it. When I say we should not be satisfied with the status quo I equate it to being satisfies with meg2 until someone developed meg4. Or being satisfied with 120hz refresh rate (LCD TV's) until we developed 240hz refresh rate, or 720P before 1080P. Most of us are satisfied or content with what we have until we're shown something better. I remember going from (cars) AM to FM, from 8 track to cassette and on to CD. I loved my Beta Max and my reel to reel tape deck and my Dual turn table. Now I have a HD DVR and a cell phone that can surf the net. It's all good but we always want better. Human nature.


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Second, did I exclude compression? Is that something I said?





good said:


> Second, uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure ... which is, btw, a part of "the digital video world", not some far away galaxy or something.
> You shouldn't believe me, you should buy a book :read:.


Yes, it was something you said. Something about "uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure".


----------



## good

James Long said:


> Yes, it was something you said. Something about "uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure".


And how is that what I've said exclude compression?!? As I've said that ""uncompressed signals (i.e. HD) are allover the broadcast studio infrastructure"", how's that *explicitly* exclude compression? Did I've said "*only* uncompressed signals"? :nono2: Obviously not :nono:. 
Do not try to put words in my mouth.


----------



## Jeff_DML

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Do not try to put words in my mouth.


Use _better_ words and you won't have as many problems.


----------



## P Smith

Jeff_DML said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_digital_interface


It's known interface, SDI - but someone can see it only in studios in restricted area.


----------



## good

>>>Jeff_DML: good job, with only one thing: SDI is for uncompressed SD signals.


James Long said:


> Use _better_ words


should I, since I know from the start that's a lost cause ...?

In home user appliance, uncompressed HD signals are carried through HDMI interface - and cable. *That was earlier mentioned by Jeff_DML*, but it seem that he is taking to the deaf ...
If the signal feed to your tv set is via HDMI interface, than you should know that we're talking about an uncompressed HD signal ... unbelievable, isn't it?!

On the other hand, speaking of broadcast world, uncompressed HD signals are carried (usually) through a digital serial interface named HD-SDI, obviously standardized in ... anyone? anyone? :SMPTE 292M! The bitrate is around 1,5 Gbps and that interface is only available in professional video equipment, so all cameras, video mixers, VTRs, servers, switchers, etc. are all connected through HD-SDI interface.
Let's suppose if we're on a stadium for a live production: the output of HD cameras (i.e. CCU - sorry for speaking foreign language ...) shall be connected via HD-SDI to main switcher in OB, than, also via HD-SDI, to encoders in DSNG - in order to reach main studio. There, the signal shall be decoded back to HD-SDI (as a matter of fact, almost all incoming feeds in a broadcast headend shall "suffer" the same treatment - unlike DBS, cable or IPTV headend, where transcoding is usually used), routed (ya, ya, via HD-SDI) through main control switcher, than to encoders to reach home users. If an OB is feeding directly a production studio, than also the connection shall be HD-SDI.
If the content is to be recorded on server or VTR, it shall be compressed to whatever format, but for replay shall be uncompressed again to HD-SDI, than again routed through main control switcher. Same for camcorders content, it shall be recorded compressed, edited than uncompressed for replay.
btw, I've said "usually" at the beginning 'cause there are also dual link HD-SDI and 3G-SDI, that one being the "Holy Grail" of broadcast industry ...
School is now over.

... so much for "*there are no such thing as uncompressed signals in the digital video world*" ...or "*pure theoretical*" !rolling



James Long said:


> you won't have as many problems.


Speaking about that: Well, the problem isn't me :nono:... As anyone can see, in the last few pages, almost everyone knows ... for sure, from experience, whatever. Nobody has the slightest doubt, nobody assume ... way to go!

I see that recently some people are already trying to move discussion to "seeing uncompressed high-definition video/audio transmissions" and bla bla bla ... As I've read on this topic, nobody said anything about that ... 
Obviously, that is not the point and, more obviously, that is not the topic issue.

Don't believe a word I've said. Go check it out, buy a book, google it, Wiki is a good start ... just do something.

------------------------------
'Any *fool* can *know*. The point is to understand.' - Albert Einstein


----------



## James Long

good said:


> James Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use _better_ words
> 
> 
> 
> should I, since I know from the start that's a lost cause ...?
Click to expand...

I wrote "use better words" not "use more words". 

Your current sig:


> 'Any *fool* can *know*. The point is to understand.' - Albert Einstein


I'm reminded of the fresh out of trade school/college person who has spent more time in books and the theoretical than in reality. They 'know' a lot ... and can spew it back freely. They just understand little.


----------



## good

James Long said:


> Your current sig:I'm reminded of the fresh out of trade school/college person who has spent more time in books and the theoretical than in reality. They 'know' a lot ... and can spew it back freely. They just understand little.


Absolutely! As someone said: it end "inside each camera" ...


----------



## P Smith

I see, he did read about processing [HD] digital signal (what anyone could do) BEFORE distributing to consumers. 
The thread focused on quality of HD video delivering to us, while his gathered knowledge is OK, we can't utilize it.
HDMI signal is inherit problems of secondary encoders of content delivery providers, adding to that it is encrypted.


----------



## P Smith

good said:


> Absolutely! As someone said: it end "inside each camera" ...


Perhaps I should add to my words " for us ", but you came here for what ? Catch my words or discuss the HD quality issues at consumer side ?


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> Perhaps I should add ...


Or perhaps you should stick with "pure theoretical" ...

Theory like theory, but the practice is killing us


----------



## P Smith

good said:


> Or perhaps you should stick with "pure theoretical" ...
> 
> Theory like theory, but the practice is killing us


You should understand by yourself ( do you ?) your demonstrated some knowledge at the forum what is theoretical for all members here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Discussion of the original captured signal before most compression is done for transmission to end-users is really meaningless... since the bandwidth required is well beyond current technology to handle.

So the only way anyone is going to see that "uncompressed" video is if they are at the source when it is first being captured.

It would be nice to see that quality in our homes... but we are a LONG way from ever seeing anything close to that happening.

It's also worth mentioning that not all compression is bad. LOSSY compression is what is bad. Some amount of compression can be done without loss of original detail... but even that is not sufficient enough for current transmission to customers.

Lossy is currently the only way to get any semblance of HD video to the masses... so while we can argue and debate over the quality capabilities there... there is no point arguing about the original uncompressed source.

You might as well argue that everything should be filmed on 35mm and everyone should have a film projector in their home... because that would be well above HD uncompressed quality!


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> You should understand by yourself ( do you ?)


 No, I don't ... but here's what you should do: "Use better words and you won't have as many problems" ... to quote some classic 



Stewart Vernon said:


> Discussion of the original captured signal before most compression is done for transmission to end-users is really meaningless...


 You should really addressed that to the one who asked about uncompressed in the first place ...



Stewart Vernon said:


> LOSSY compression is what is bad. Some amount of compression can be done without loss of original detail...


 That's a very interesting point ... which say actually nothing :grin:
Do you have a specific amount (percent, biterate or whatever) to point out of how much "compression can be done without loss of original detail"? 
Or is that ALL lossy compression is bad?


----------



## P Smith

good, you diverting your good nick into a troll-like one


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> good, you diverting your good nick into a troll-like one


Well, thanks to freedom, you can express any opinion! 
But I can bet you don't wanna hear mine


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Do you have a specific amount (percent, biterate or whatever) to point out of how much "compression can be done without loss of original detail"?


Zero.


> Or is that ALL lossy compression is bad?


Or is it that all compression is "lossy"? It simply comes down to perception. Sit two inches away from a perfect 72" 1080p monitor and one might see a difference between compressions. Sit 10ft away from a 15" 720p monitor and one might not be able to tell the difference between a HD and a SD source (if visual detail is the guide). Or just pick a number, possibly a biased one, and say anything that isn't as good as that number is too much.


----------



## good

James Long said:


> Zero.
> It simply comes down to perception. ...


Ok, let's take it the other way around: do you (think you can) see compression artifacts on a ...let's say a contribution link at around 60 Mbps, sitting at normal distance viewing, looking at some 42 inch LCD or plasma?


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Ok, let's take it the other way around: do you (think you can) see compression artifacts on a ...let's say a contribution link at around 60 Mbps, sitting at normal distance viewing, looking at some 42 inch LCD or plasma?


It depends ... are my bifocals clean?

I don't have a 60 Mbps feed of anything in my home. The highest bitrate I receive is around 14 Mbps (CW HD 1920x1080i OTA). The lowest bitrate I receive that claims to be HD is 11.65 Mbps (CBS HD 1920x1080i OTA, with the local NBC HD slightly higher). The 1280x720p OTA feeds in my market are 10.67 Mbps and 13.21 Mbps (ABC HD and Fox HD, respectively). Satellite feeds are, of course, less.

Welcome to real life.


----------



## good

James Long said:


> The highest bitrate I receive is around 14 Mbps (CW HD 1920x1080i OTA). The lowest bitrate I receive that claims to be HD is 11.65 Mbps (CBS HD 1920x1080i OTA, with the local NBC HD slightly higher). The 1280x720p OTA feeds in my market are 10.67 Mbps and 13.21 Mbps (ABC HD and Fox HD, respectively).


Well, we accomplished one first great thing: we have some bitrates. Do you see compression artifacts or any other annoying things on those channels? At any particular moments? Which one? What's your tv set? What's the usual viewing distance? Would you care to put some screen captures?



James Long said:


> Satellite feeds are, of course, less.


How's that?!? Or what do you mean by "Satellite feeds"?

btw, I'm from third stone from the sun :lol:


----------



## James Long

good said:


> Well, we accomplished one first great thing: we have some bitrates. Do you see compression artifacts or any other annoying things on those channels? At any particular moments? Which one? What's your tv set? What's the usual viewing distance? Would you care to put some screen captures?


I don't notice anything odd ... but most of my viewing is via satellite (cable channels and locals) at the lower bandwidths. I'm easy to please. 



> How's that?!? Or what do you mean by "Satellite feeds"?


Do you know what website you're posting on? What forum you're posting in?
Do I really have to explain what satellite feeds we discuss here?


----------



## P Smith

I feel too much pressure from 10 days old member .. Ough.


----------



## Jim5506

Whippersnappers!!


----------



## Mike109

James Long said:


> It depends ... are my bifocals clean?
> 
> I don't have a 60 Mbps feed of anything in my home. The highest bitrate I receive is around 14 Mbps (CW HD 1920x1080i OTA). The lowest bitrate I receive that claims to be HD is 11.65 Mbps (CBS HD 1920x1080i OTA, with the local NBC HD slightly higher). The 1280x720p OTA feeds in my market are 10.67 Mbps and 13.21 Mbps (ABC HD and Fox HD, respectively). Satellite feeds are, of course, less.
> 
> Welcome to real life.


I've been recording CBS OTA with my 722K and perhaps once during an hour program I get some green pixels at the very bottom of the screen. I have re-aligned my OTA antenna, but of course may still be getting a low signal at times. I have never noticed this when recording CBS via the sat tuner.

But it did make me wonder if the 722K may have a problem recording the CBS OTA. In my Chicagoland market CBS is 1920x1080i and has no sub-channels. I don't know the bitrate, but could it be too high at times that the 722K has trouble recording it?


----------



## P Smith

Ask guys with ATSC tuner PCI/USB card in your area - if they could run TSReaderLite, then you'll have the numbers (shouldn't be more then 18.5 Mbps).


----------



## coolman302003

Mike109 said:


> don't know the bitrate, but could it be too high at times that the 722K has trouble recording it?


According to http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=station_search&callsign=WBBM Video Bitrate is 16.15Mbps

Attached below is the full technical information of the station.


----------



## James Long

coolman302003 said:


> According to http://www.rabbitears.info/market.php?request=station_search&callsign=WBBM Video Bitrate is 16.15Mbps


I was about to post that link ... Although that capture is old (January) it should still be correct. Or at least close. Last October (2009) the rate was 13.83 Mbps.

VHF OTA is a challenge. Problems with WBBM are more likely to be problems with the signal not the bitrate.

BTW: According to RabbitEars there are 800 1080i channels in North America. The one using the highest bitrate is CIII-TV-41 in Toronto, Ontario at 18.75 Mbps. The one using the lowest bitrate is WPTO in Oxford, Ohio at 5.7 Mbps (WPTO also carries four 704x480 SD feeds). The average of the 800 channels is 13.51 Mbps. (source)


----------



## good

James Long said:


> I don't notice anything odd ...


 It's normal, 'cause at those biterates channels should be ok. I think it's worth mentioned that compress signals in 720p requires about to 20% less bitrate than the interlaced format (1080i) to obtain the same subjective image quality.
What about those with lower bitrates?



James Long said:


> Do I really have to explain what satellite feeds we discuss here?


 That should be nice so we all can speak the same language ... 'cause for me, a "satellite feed" is a contribution link, usually around 60 Mbps for some big live events, highlights or something and a lot less (let's say around 6-15 Mbps) for news gathering or other short events.



P Smith said:


> I feel too much pressure


 Well, maybe you should take a break ... to chill out or something


----------



## Jim5506

Never mind!


----------



## P Smith

good said:


> It's normal, 'cause at those biterates channels should be ok. I think it's worth mentioned that compress signals in 720p requires about to 20% less bitrate than the interlaced format (1080i) to obtain the same subjective image quality.
> What about those with lower bitrates?
> 
> That should be nice so we all can speak the same language ... 'cause for me, a "satellite feed" is a contribution link, usually around 60 Mbps for some big live events, highlights or something and a lot less (let's say around 6-15 Mbps) for news gathering or other short events.
> 
> Well, maybe you should take a break ... to chill out or something


Oh, you are rude person also ... How nice off new member here !

I'm doubt those "60 Mbps" feeds could coming during special events, in reality by many 'feed' hunters the numbers for such "big live events" not seen so high in a filed.

We can check *your *numbers. I can show here real number, just pick a sat/tpn and time.


----------



## good

P Smith said:


> Oh, you are rude person also ... How nice off new member here !
> 
> I'm doubt those "60 Mbps" feeds could coming during special events, in reality by many 'feed' hunters the numbers for such "big live events" not seen so high in a filed.
> 
> We can check *your *numbers. I can show here real number, just pick a sat/tpn and time.


My opinion is that you're more than rude, taking into account your attitude ... but that kind of discussion doesn't lead anywhere.

You have doubts?!? Well, that doesn't count . Just come with your numbers :grin:. Tell us which what event is linked. Let's try Nascar races ... you got something ?
Prove me wrong :hurah:, bring me to the ground :lol:... just like you showed us all how HDCam and DVCProHD format are "from previous century" :rolling:


----------



## James Long

The topic of this thread is not "who is rude" ... so please ...
:backtotop


----------



## Jeff_DML

Mike109 said:


> I've been recording CBS OTA with my 722K and perhaps once during an hour program I get some green pixels at the very bottom of the screen. I have re-aligned my OTA antenna, but of course may still be getting a low signal at times. I have never noticed this when recording CBS via the sat tuner.
> 
> But it did make me wonder if the 722K may have a problem recording the CBS OTA. In my Chicagoland market CBS is 1920x1080i and has no sub-channels. I don't know the bitrate, but could it be too high at times that the 722K has trouble recording it?


you are going off topic but a bad signal/recording porblem l is not going to caused green pixels, that is a encoding/decoding problem. You will see macroblocking if you have a problem.


----------



## P Smith

good, I did ask you what sat/tpn and time to check, but you gave whole Universe to check. Nay, that doesn't count.


----------



## Mike109

Thanks for RabbitEars link. It sure has a lot of information.

I apologize for getting off topic. With all the talk about bitrates it made me wonder if the 722K could keep up with some of the OTA bitrates.


----------



## James Long

Mike109 said:


> Thanks for RabbitEars link. It sure has a lot of information.
> 
> I apologize for getting off topic. With all the talk about bitrates it made me wonder if the 722K could keep up with some of the OTA bitrates.


I don't see why not. The old 622 can keep up with the bittiest OTA and it isn't as powerful.


----------



## whatchel1

Mike109 said:


> Thanks for RabbitEars link. It sure has a lot of information.
> 
> I apologize for getting off topic. With all the talk about bitrates it made me wonder if the 722K could keep up with some of the OTA bitrates.


Why wouldn't it?


----------



## Mike109

whatchel1 said:


> Why wouldn't it?


I have no idea why it would or would not. But I thought I'd ask because CBS is the only OTA channel that I sometimes get green pixels at the bottom of the screen. Does not happen with CBS via sat tuner.


----------



## dj_osbo

Keep in mind that the signal sent to the cable and/or satellite providers by the station is taken ahead of the over-the-air transmitter. The over-the-air signal may show problems that occur at the station after the signal is sent to the cable and/or satellite provider and therefore don't appear in the cable and/or satellite signal.


----------



## Jeff_DML

dj_osbo said:


> Keep in mind that the signal sent to the cable and/or satellite providers by the station is taken ahead of the over-the-air transmitter. The over-the-air signal may show problems that occur at the station after the signal is sent to the cable and/or satellite provider and therefore don't appear in the cable and/or satellite signal.


I know the cable guys do that but I thought DISH pulls all their local affiliates from OTA? My local seem like they are since I see occasional multipath looking errors in the stream occasionally.


----------



## P Smith

Jeff_DML said:


> I know the cable guys do that but I thought DISH pulls all their local affiliates from OTA? My local seem like they are since *I see occasional multipath* looking errors in the stream occasionally.


Could you post a snapshots ?
BTW, some local stations giving out by fiber to sat providers.


----------



## Steve

Jeff_DML said:


> I know the cable guys do that but *I thought DISH pulls all their local affiliates from OTA*? My local seem like they are since I see occasional multipath looking errors in the stream occasionally.


Perhaps DirecTV as well, at least for some of the East Coast nationals. I routinely record OTA from the Empire State Building in NYC... I'm about 18-19 miles away, and get a very good signal. On shows I've recorded _both_ sat and OTA on different DirecTV receivers, I've often seen the same half-second bursts of pixelation and/or audio dropouts in both types of recordings. And more so on FOX than CBS, NBC, ABC or PBS, in my experience.


----------



## James Long

dj_osbo said:


> Keep in mind that the signal sent to the cable and/or satellite providers by the station is taken ahead of the over-the-air transmitter.


In rare cases. In most markets DISH uses high quality OTA ATSC tuners for their feeds. There are a few direct connections but most is simple OTA reception using high quality receivers.


----------



## Jeff_DML

P Smith said:


> Could you post a snapshots ?
> BTW, some local stations giving out by fiber to sat providers.


sorry, no snapshots. I should clarify, very occasional, probably only a few times. I do get bluesparkles on my ABC affiliate, think there is a thread on it somewhere.


----------



## P Smith

Jeff_DML said:


> sorry, no snapshots. I should clarify, very occasional, probably only a few times. I do get bluesparkles on my ABC affiliate, think there is a thread on it somewhere.


It could be in source signal, not in the air...


----------

