# Picture Quality of DirecTV



## jordanhallmann (Apr 23, 2012)

I am considering switching to DirecTV. I want to compare the picture quality to TWC. Can you attach some videos or pics of the picture quality of DirecTV so I can make my decision.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

The quality would depend on the storage or compression of the pic uploaded. No way to upload it without it being recompressed somehow. I can post a screen grab:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

It's great ... Just like you were told here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=204339


----------



## brucegrr (Sep 14, 2006)

I have had Directv, Time Warner, and Dish. I am now with Directv again. IMO, Directv wins the best picture award hands down. I think it would be very difficult to post pictures to "show" the quality. Too many variables.


----------



## jimbo56 (Nov 13, 2007)

jordanhallmann said:


> I am considering switching to DirecTV. I want to compare the picture quality to TWC. Can you attach some videos or pics of the picture quality of DirecTV so I can make my decision.


I don't think a screenshot would give you a true indication of the PQ you could expect. I would suggest that you do a search for satellite installation companies in your area and see if they have a showroom where you can see DirecTV being demonstrated (I know there's at least a couple here in my area). You will find that DirecTV probably has the best HD PQ of all the major providers (FiOS is about equal, but may not be available in your area). Also be sure to check the SD PQ on those channels you might watch regularly; TWC might be better as DirecTV over-compresses their SD channels terribly - it might be a factor in making your decision. If your installer also does Dish Network, check out the PQ (it'll be a little worse, but may be perfectly acceptable to you), but keep in mind that Dish offers quite a few more basic HD channels so that might be a consideration. Dish is sadly lacking in sports programming, while DirecTV is undoubtably the best.

Whatever provider you ultimately choose, there will be tradeoffs. Good luck.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Cable varies widely from region to region, based on the local system and infrastructure. The only valid comparison between the two would have to be done on your local TWC system. Comparisons done anywhere else would be pretty meaningless.

However, assuming TWC in your area is doing things right, there should be little noticeable difference in picture quality between them and DirecTV. If that is the case, your choice would then need to be based on channels carried and cost.


----------



## Paradox-sj (Dec 15, 2004)

THIS Direct has the best pic quality is by no means a given. I just had Direct installed and run it side by side with my Dish as well a Comcast. 

Dish is the clear winner in my setup...not only for the nationals but locals by far as well.

I would suggest as other have taking a test drive at a neighbors or local showroom and let YOUR eyes decide.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

SD is terrible, HD is excellent.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Paradox-sj said:


> THIS Direct has the best pic quality is by no means a given. I just had Direct installed and run it side by side with my Dish as well a Comcast.
> 
> Dish is the clear winner in my setup...not only for the nationals but locals by far as well.
> 
> I would suggest as other have taking a test drive at a neighbors or local showroom and let YOUR eyes decide.


Not wanting to disagree, can you give some of the bit-rates for Dish's HD?
Given they too are using MPEG-4, these samples do need to be over time to have some meaning.

I've been able to compare the same show from DirecTV and U-verse and found U-verse to only have 66% of the bit-rate of DirecTV for HD.
I'm curious as to Dish's bit-rates.

BTW: U-verse's goal is to be better than comcrap here, but they're not trying to match DirecTV.


----------



## jordanhallmann (Apr 23, 2012)

carl6 said:


> Cable varies widely from region to region, based on the local system and infrastructure. The only valid comparison between the two would have to be done on your local TWC system. Comparisons done anywhere else would be pretty meaningless.
> 
> However, assuming TWC in your area is doing things right, there should be little noticeable difference in picture quality between them and DirecTV. If that is the case, your choice would then need to be based on channels carried and cost.


TWC in my area (Greensboro, Charlotte NC) has the worst HD picture. It is over compressed. ESPN, almost all of the channels are so compressed that you see every pixel. But, the internet seems to be faster at night and not slowing down which it normally does.


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

I am a self-proclaimed pixel-peeper. I can see subtle differences in picture quality, find macro blocking in the background distracting, and can tell if colors are quashed or good. DirecTV's HD is the best. I just switched to Dish Network and I can easily see the difference. Dish's national HD is very good, certainly watchable, but not as sharp as DirecTV's. Dish's HD locals are terrible for me - perhaps because I live in a small market north of 150th. To save bandwidth, Dish cuts the horizontal resolution to 1440 from 1980, which is at least part of the reason DirecTV's HD is better. If you have a 720p native set, you wouldn't be able to see the difference.

However, DirecTV's SD is unbearably bad. Dish's is very watchable. If a channel you really love is only in SD on DirecTV, you will be very upset at how bad the picture looks. Dish has more HD channels in their basic lineup.

Many people have problems with DirecTV HD DVRs being slow or unresponsive. Mine was, and that was the primary reason I switched. Even as a new customer, you may get a pokey DVR. Dish's DVRs are fast, sometimes jarringly so. If you haven't already, read the forums about DVR performance issues and decide if you can live with a dog if you get one. My HR22-100 had great pictures. That's about all that's good that I can say about it.


----------



## Arya Stark (Mar 17, 2012)

sregener --

So was the massive increase in DVR speed worth the slight decrease in HD picture quality for you?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Put it this way - I can pick up my locals over the air. Here in Philly, the over the air picture has no advantage over DirecTV's picture quality.

And, yes, watching DirecTV SD is painfully bad.


----------



## jimbo56 (Nov 13, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Put it this way - I can pick up my locals over the air. Here in Philly, the over the air picture has no advantage over DirecTV's picture quality.
> 
> And, yes, watching DirecTV SD is painfully bad.


I was using an AM-21 along with my DirecTV equipment in order to get my CW and MyTV affiliates in HD, but I agree with wilbur that the HD PQ of the locals that DirecTV carried was virtually identical with OTA.

SD PQ on DirecTV was so bad that I would never watch it unless there was programming that I absolutely wanted to see. When I switched to FiOS, I was astounded to see how much better SD PQ was on their service. While HD is still so much better, there are actually SD channels I watch now...


----------



## sregener (Apr 17, 2012)

"Arya Stark" said:


> So was the massive increase in DVR speed worth the slight decrease in HD picture quality for you?


Hmmm. By itself, no. But I gained BBC America and The Hub in HD, Encore HD, AMC HD and TCM HD, got a blazing fast DVR, a promotional programming discount of $250 and gave up no channels I actually watch. Gaining channels I will watch, in HD, for no net increase in cost, combined with a DVR that is blazing fast... That makes the slight (not unwatchable, just a slight loss in picture detail) decrease in HD picture quality more than worth it for me. And channels that are in SD are watchable again, which means even more decent programming options. You may feel differently. To each his own.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Put it this way - I can pick up my locals over the air. Here in Philly, the over the air picture has no advantage over DirecTV's picture quality.





jimbo56 said:


> I was using an AM-21 along with my DirecTV equipment in order to get my CW and MyTV affiliates in HD, but I agree with wilbur that the HD PQ of the locals that DirecTV carried was virtually identical with OTA.


I also have an AM-21, and "virtually" identical is a fair comment. There is an "ever so slight" difference, comparing the MPEG-2 OTA to the same MPEG-4 from DirecTV.
DirecTV SD is reduced to 480 x 480, or even less if it's a 16:9 program being shown in letterbox SD.
I guess I'm fortunate because my Sony can scale these to a "fairly good" image. I zoom the 16:9 SD to fit my display and it "doesn't look that bad". With an earlier Sony HD receiver and TV, SD looked like crap, so the scaler you're using makes all the difference.


----------



## jimbo56 (Nov 13, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I also have an AM-21, and "virtually" identical is a fair comment. There is an "ever so slight" difference, comparing the MPEG-2 OTA to the same MPEG-4 from DirecTV.


I'm guessing that what you're saying is that the OTA PQ is "ever so slightly" better than DirecTV, which is a fair statement since DirecTV retransmits the OTA signal and recompresses it. My old eyes really can't tell the difference, but I could never actually compare the two side by side, I could just switch channels back and forth to see if I noticed a difference.

As to the OP, I suppose my decision would be based on what kind of a HD "snob" I was. Personally, I find pixilation (like you're experiencing with TWC) unacceptable, but I probably would put up with a slightly less pristine HD picture (like Dish Network) if there was a significant number of additional HD channels that I would watch regularly compared to DirecTV.

My opinion, based on reading posts here, is that DBSTalk forum members are more concerned about obtaining the best possible PQ than the general public. (I think that that's why blu-ray has not caught on faster; most people are more than satisfied with the PQ of standard DVDs.) The OP needs to assess his needs and properly compare the alternatives before making a decision. If he choose DirecTV or Dish Network he will have a two year commitment to deal with.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

The HD on DirecTV is pretty good. The SD is HORRIBLE, especially on my 60" TV. BBC America is a blocky mess. It is so bad that my wife asked if we could just download Richard Hammond's Crash Course rather than watch it on DirecTV. Doctor Who is letterboxed SD and just unwatchable. :nono2:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

sregener said:


> Hmmm. By itself, no. But I gained BBC America and The Hub in HD, Encore HD, AMC HD and TCM HD...


Encore & AMC are HD on DirecTV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> The HD on DirecTV is pretty good. The SD is HORRIBLE, especially on my 60" TV. BBC America is a blocky mess. It is so bad that my wife asked if we could just download Richard Hammond's Crash Course rather than watch it on DirecTV. Doctor Who is letterboxed SD and just unwatchable. :nono2:


The VOD program hasn't been reduced, and sometimes with BBCA you'll find more of the program in the VOD than through the SAT, as they haven't cut it for commercials. British shows are normally 1 hour without commercials, so if they air through the SAT in an hour with commercials they've cut 15 mins out for the commercial time.
Top Gear, when it's 90 mins is the full show.


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

Having had direct, dish and comcast I can say that anything is better than cable in terms of image quality and DVRs. 

Dish and Direct look pretty much the same to me in terms of HD. Dish has better looking SD. But I don't watch SD.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

archer75 said:


> Having had direct, dish and comcast I can say that anything is better than cable in terms of image quality and DVRs.
> 
> Dish and Direct look pretty much the same to me in terms of HD. Dish has better looking SD. But I don't watch SD.


DirecTV, FiOS, and OTA (via roof antenna) HD all looked great on my 40-inch Sony set. As for SD channels, FiOS easily outshines DirecTV. The only SD channel that I watch with any regularity is TCM.


----------



## JackBikes (Feb 14, 2008)

I have been having pixilation issues that just seem to be random. Had been great for years. Hope you can see my video.


----------



## JackBikes (Feb 14, 2008)

Looks like its just a picture, but you can see its unwatchable. Deleted the show and will try again. Its so random.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JackBikes said:


> View attachment 29046
> 
> 
> I have been having pixilation issues that just seem to be random. Had been great for years. Hope you can see my video.


You've only posted a still image, "but" that's a signal issue that should be correctable.


----------



## randyk47 (Aug 21, 2006)

JackBikes said:


> View attachment 29046
> 
> 
> I have been having pixilation issues that just seem to be random. Had been great for years. Hope you can see my video.


Really looks like a signal issue, maybe your dish alignment has slipped. After years of my dish and signal being as solid as a rock it went south on me a couple of weeks ago. Turned out the mounting board my original dish installer insisted on using had started to rot and the dish was settling. It had been so solid for so long I'd kind of got lazy and hadn't checked my signal in months so no telling how long or when the dish and signal started to slip. All redone and the DirecTV tech and I worked on nailing the signal. I've been with DirecTV since 1999 when I cut TWC back to locals and Internet back in Virginia. When I moved to San Antonio in 2003 I didn't even bother with TWC and use DSL for Internet and DirecTV only. Actually wanted TWC for Internet only back then but they had no interest so they broke two install appointments so they're not welcome around here. This house does have a great OTA antenna in the attic and I use that as a back-up.


----------



## KAL (Sep 1, 2008)

Left DirectTV two weeks ago for what I felt was a great FIOS triple play price. After two weeks, im completely underwhelmed and disappointed by FIOS (refering to TV service specifically) The FIOS phone and internet services have been very decent so far. Right off the bat, I noticed that FIOS HD in general was not nearly as sharp as Directs was. Add to that the very very distracting pixelation and micro blocking. I can say without a doubt that compared to FIOS at least (in my case), Directs HD quality is top notch. Got a re-connect offer from D a few days ago and I decided to take them up on it. I will admit that it was nice to have CSN Philadelphia again though


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

KAL said:


> Left DirectTV two weeks ago for what I felt was a great FIOS triple play price. After two weeks, im completely underwhelmed and disappointed by FIOS (refering to TV service specifically) The FIOS phone and internet services have been very decent so far. Right off the bat, I noticed that FIOS HD in general was not nearly as sharp as Directs was. Add to that the very very distracting pixelation and micro blocking. I can say without a doubt that compared to FIOS at least (in my case), Directs HD quality is top notch. Got a re-connect offer from D a few days ago and I decided to take them up on it. I will admit that it was nice to have CSN Philadelphia again though


Looks like the grass wasn't greener. Glad it worked out for you with the re-connect offer.


----------



## KAL (Sep 1, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> Looks like the grass wasn't greener. Glad it worked out for you with the re-connect offer.


Oh my friend, you dont even know just how much I have missed D!!! After FIOS was installed, I noticed in a very short amount of time that there was a moderate HD quality drop off from the DirecTV picture I was so used to watching for years. By breaking up my bundle (will still keep a double play phone and internet) I'm actually going to be paying more. its worth it to me though. I wont bore you with a ton of more details and examples, but lets just say I couldnt go for more then a few minutes at a time watching a basketball or hockey game without getting aggravated. Thats what happens when one is used to HD perfection I guess :lol:


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm with been with TWC for about 10 months after having been with Directv for 6 years. Had them both side by side for about a month. 

Picture qualty HD: Cannot tell difference. Both very good

Picture quality SD: TWC wins hands down. 

Picture quality on numerous HD channels not on Directv: TWC wins 

Picture quality on all local channels and sub channels: TWC wins, because Directv doesn't carry many of them (me tv, RTN, etc.)

Picture quality when it rains: TWC wins, because Directv has no picture.

Picture quality when in snows: TWC wins, because I can't get to my roof to knock the snow off the dish.

Ability to use TIVO Premieres vs old software on new Directivo: TWC wins.

TWC Signature home service: Superb

Directv CSRs: Do you have protection plan? Have you unplugged your receiver? Did you hit the red buttom to reset? Are you sure you set it to record the program it missed? The noise the receiver makes is normal......

Bottom line: There's no real advantage to Directv anymore unless you are a sports fan and want NFL Sunday ticket


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

jal said:


> I'm with been with TWC for about 10 months after having been with Directv for 6 years. Had them both side by side for about a month.
> 
> Picture qualty HD: Cannot tell difference. Both very good
> 
> ...


We have TWC here. I use it for internet service (goes off line frequently due to unannounced maintenance and other issues). Some of my neighbors have their service. After viewing my DirecTV service one is switching to DirecTV and the other is seriously considering switching. It rains and snows here too but we don't always experience rain/snow fade as you infer. I've been a DirecTV customer for seventeen years. Have had many different types of receivers during that time but never experienced noise problems with any of them. Sounds like "your" DirecTV experience is a isolated one and not the norm as you would have us believe. :sure:


----------



## randyk47 (Aug 21, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> We have TWC here. I use it for internet service (goes off line frequently due to unannounced maintenance and other issues). Some of my neighbors have their service. After viewing my DirecTV service one is switching to DirecTV and the other is seriously considering switching. It rains and snows here too but we don't always experience rain/snow fade as you infer. I've been a DirecTV customer for seventeen years. Have had many different types of receivers during that time but never experienced noise problems with any of them. Sounds like "your" DirecTV experience is a isolated one and not the norm as you would have us believe. :sure:


I'm kind of in the if-it-ain't-broken-don't-fix-it camp when it comes to DirecTV versus cable. Back in 1999 we switched from an almost unusable cable system in Northern Virginia to DirecTV and have been with them ever since even when we moved to Texas. Granted I got hooked on NFL Sunday Ticket and that helps keeping me a customer but that wouldn't necessarily keep me if there were quality or dependability issues. Luckily weather is generally not an issue here in San Antonio but in the four years in Virginia we basically got through bad weather there with relatively few outages though far less than the then really crumby cable. I guess I could chase costs, price breaks, special offers, etc., etc., but I don't, it's not worth the hassle to me.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

jal said:


> I'm with been with TWC for about 10 months after having been with Directv for 6 years. Had them both side by side for about a month.
> 
> Picture qualty HD: Cannot tell difference. Both very good
> 
> ...


I have no doubt there are advantages to every provider, but if your signal is going out when it rains, then you have an issue with the installation. Heavy rain may disrupt the signal for a short time, but not a complete loss just because of rain.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Not wanting to disagree, can you give some of the bit-rates for Dish's HD?
> Given they too are using MPEG-4, these samples do need to be over time to have some meaning.
> 
> I've been able to compare the same show from DirecTV and U-verse and found U-verse to only have 66% of the bit-rate of DirecTV for HD.
> ...


I was with D* for 4+years and switched to E* mainly to save a few bucks. I personally don't see much difference in PQ between them. However the E* Hopper shows the exact file size for recorded shows so here's some info for comparison:

In Plain Sight - 1 hr, USA - 1.729G = 3.84MBps
Fairly Legal - 1 hr, USA - 1.538G = 3.42MBps
Magic City - 1 hr, Starz - 1.407G = 3.13MBps recorded 4/27 (latest episode)
Mad Men - 66 mins, AMC - 1.709G = 3.45MBps recorded 4/29 (latest episode)


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

On the flip side of the weather, when there's a storm that takes down lines, if your dish doesn't get blown around, you have service as soon as power comes back. You have to wait for the cable company.

Also, the problem with cable comparisons is it is very dependent on the city. Here, it is very obvious that DirecTV has better quality. It does not take a videophile to see it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

oldengineer said:


> I was with D* for 4+years and switched to E* mainly to save a few bucks. I personally don't see much difference in PQ between them. However the E* Hopper shows the exact file size for recorded shows so here's some info for comparison:
> 
> In Plain Sight - 1 hr, USA - 1.729G = 3.84MBps
> Fairly Legal - 1 hr, USA - 1.538G = 3.42MBps
> ...


Thanks, 
While I don't have copies of those to compare apples to apples, with DirecTV being in the 3.5+ GB/hr, it suggests these are even below U-verse.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Also consider that Dish has only 75% the horizontal resolution of D*, so that will have a significant impact on file sizes. Is U-verse MPEG4 or MPEG2?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mdavej said:


> Is U-verse MPEG4 or MPEG2?


MPEG-4


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

oldengineer said:


> I was with D* for 4+years and switched to E* mainly to save a few bucks. I personally don't see much difference in PQ between them. However the E* Hopper shows the exact file size for recorded shows so here's some info for comparison:
> 
> In Plain Sight - 1 hr, USA - 1.729G = 3.84MBps
> Fairly Legal - 1 hr, USA - 1.538G = 3.42MBps
> ...


Wow, that low?

Even if the Hopper's file measurement is only approximate, those low numbers still give a comparable PQ to DIRECTV's which uses approx. 2 1/2 times that bitrate on average? Even during moving scenes?

Boy, Ill say the human eye must not be that discriminatory.

BTW, just to note:

If those are actually *binary* GBs for file size the Hopper is referring to as computers typically do. Then those bit rates should be a tad higher as the formula for an hour recording in "megabits per sec." ("mb/s"), not "MegaBytes" ("MB/s"), is actually;

File size in GB * 1024 * 8 / 3600.

I see you must have used a factor of only "1000" in the previous computations.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

I assumed it was a decimal representation. If it was a "binary" representation 2**30 = 1.074 exp 9 so the extra multiplier would be closer to 1.074 than 1.024 right? Even so it doesn't come close to what VOS says what D*s bitrate is. OTOH with a good LCD TV I can switch the resolution to 720X480P and watch a 16:9 picture and scenes without a lot of action still look good.

BTW my calcs are megabits per second. Excuse the upper case on the b.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I think I need to comment on MPEG-4 bit rates.
They're a bit hard to quantify since they vary so much.
Using DirecTV2PC you can see the rate in seconds, and it can be down as low as 1 or 2 Mb/s, and then be over 14 Mb/s, depending of the image content.
Collecting [sampling] over time tends to give a better idea.

I've downloaded HBO VOD through a 5 Mb/s connection and had 1:1 HD for a good 10 programs, which surprised me and the PQ didn't show any loss. 

I was able to compare DirecTV & U-verse by streaming the same program sync'd within a second or so, and monitored each of the router port's traffic over many minutes.

"I think" the general difference is that DirecTV passes the peak high bit-rates much more than U-verse.

Dish does reduce their 1080i by 25%, so there is a savings, but it looks like they go further and may also cap the peak rates too.

Looking at the total file size should give a good overall idea.
The U-verse DVR [sent mine back over a month ago] did have a higher number of hours for HD than my HR2x, with the same size drive, which generally matched the bit-rate difference I measured.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

Hey VOS, let's try an experiment. I have the AEP with E* so I can record most anything. Can we pick a few shows and compare results. One good one would be the Flyers/Devils game on NBC Sports tonight. Maybe we can get a better handle on this.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

oldengineer said:


> I assumed it was a decimal representation ...


Yes if the Hopper is reading in decimal then your previous calculations are correct, but if binary then the numbers are slightly higher was my point.



> ... If it was a "binary" representation 2**30 = 1.074 exp 9 so the extra multiplier would be closer to 1.074 than 1.024 right?


Only if you are converting from "bytes" to binary "GBs." If you are converting only one step from GB to MB though its 1024. That is to say its a factor of 1024 per step for binary to binary conversion. This is why the 2**30 figure you quoted is also equal to 1024 * 1024 * 1024.



> ... Even so it doesn't come close to what VOS says what D*s bitrate is. OTOH with a good LCD TV *I can switch the resolution to 720X480P and watch a 16:9 picture and scenes without a lot of action still look good.*


Did you mean the 720p HD format which is 1280 x 720?



> ... BTW my calcs are megabits per second. Excuse the upper case on the b.


No problem ...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

oldengineer said:


> Hey VOS, let's try an experiment. I have the AEP with E* so I can record most anything. Can we pick a few shows and compare results. One good one would be the Flyers/Devils game on NBC Sports tonight. Maybe we can get a better handle on this.


You would pick something I wouldn't watch. :lol:
So what do you want to do, or what is AEP?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> You would pick something I wouldn't watch. :lol:
> So what do you want to do, *or what is AEP?*


dish Networks' "America's Everything Pak" I would assume. 

http://www.dish.com/entertainment/packages/americas-everything-pak/


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> dish Networks' "America's Everything Pak" I would assume.
> 
> http://www.dish.com/entertainment/packages/americas-everything-pak/


Then how could this be used to measure bit rates?
I'll be glad to record something and try to quantify the bit rate, but someone with Dish needs to be able to do the same to get to "apples and apples".


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> Yes if the Hopper is reading in decimal then your previous calculations are correct, but if binary then the numbers are slightly higher was my point.
> 
> Only if you are converting from "bytes" to binary "GBs." If you are converting only one step from GB to MB though its 1024. That is to say its a factor of 1024 per step for binary to binary conversion. This is why the 2**30 figure you quoted is also equal to 1024 * 1024 * 1024.
> 
> ...


If an entity refers to a "binary" 1K it represents 2**10 = 1024 (decimal) things, or 1.024 times whatever things represents.

If an entity refers to a "binary" 1G it represents 2**30 = 1.074 exp 9 (decimal) things or 1.074 times whatever things represents.

Since the file sizes listed are between 1 and 2 G I say that 1.074 is the better multiplier, but then I've been retired for 5 years and I don't think as good as I used to.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> You would pick something I wouldn't watch. :lol:
> So what do you want to do, or what is AEP?


I won't watch the whole thing either because I'm a Flyers fan and also a jinx. The reason I suggested it was because it's a 3+ hour sports show with lots of fast moving scenes.

As noted AEP is the E* everything pack. Pick some shows that interest you and I'll also record it, and we'll be able to compare apples to apples.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Then how could this be used to measure bit rates?
> I'll be glad to record something and try to quantify the bit rate, but someone with Dish needs to be able to do the same to get to "apples and apples".


Oh I don't think oldengineer meant the programming package can be used as a specific methodology to compare bitrates, but means that the package has more than an ample supply of available channels in which many are sure to coincide with those carried in any DIRECTV package to make for a good representative cross-sample of programs for comparing bitrates between the two providers.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

oldengineer said:


> I won't watch the whole thing either because I'm a Flyers fan and also a jinx. The reason I suggested it was because it's a 3+ hour sports show with lots of fast moving scenes.
> 
> As noted AEP is the E* everything pack. Pick some shows that interest you and I'll also record it, and we'll be able to compare apples to apples.


I was hoping you'd have some way of monitoring the feed.
Trying to compare "viewing" isn't worth much, because our systems [TV, etc.] aren't the same.
You get to read the file size on the drive, but I don't, "other than" knowing 1 hr takes 1% of a drive with 400 GBs, which is about the crudest measurement
possible.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

oldengineer said:


> If an entity refers to a "binary" 1K it represents 2**10 = 1024 (decimal) things, or 1.024 times whatever things represents....


Correct.



> ... If an entity refers to a "binary" 1G it represents 2**30 = 1.074 exp 9 (decimal) things or 1.074 times whatever things represents.


True again;

But what I'm explaining is if you are converting say a binary 1K to the amount this is in GBs. Then its the 1K / 1024 * 1024 or ~9.54 * 10**-7 GB . Or vice-versa for how much a binary 1G would be in equivalent KBs is the 1G * 1024 * 1024 or ~ 1049 KBs.


----------



## oldengineer (May 25, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> I was hoping you'd have some way of monitoring the feed.
> Trying to compare "viewing" isn't worth much, because our systems [TV, etc.] aren't the same.
> You get to read the file size on the drive, but I don't, "other than" knowing 1 hr takes 1% of a drive with 400 GBs, which is about the crudest measurement
> possible.


I guess this ends it then unless another D* sub who can get an accurate count wants to try. I don't have any sophisticated monitoring equipment but I assume the byte counter in the Hopper is accurate, and it at least pretends to be since it gives counts to 3 decimal places (better than a slide rule)

Another data point 1 hr Law & Order - 1.956GB = 4.347Mb/s bit rate


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

oldengineer said:


> IAnother data point 1 hr Law & Order - 1.956GB = 4.347Mb/s bit rate


Which is "generally" half of what it would be with DirecTV.


----------

