# Will DirecTV move to H.265?



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Hope not. I'd hate to give up my HR20-700 w/ built in OTA.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

The standard just received first stage approval by the ITC this week. So I think you're safe for now.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mreposter said:


> The standard just received first stage approval by the ITC this week. So I think you're safe for now.


Well, I'm *sure* they will move to it at some point since it uses like 30% the bandwidth of H.264. That would allow for less compression, but I think DTV is more interested in adding channels, not reducing compression ratios.

Too bad, the PQ has really gone down since ~2000... but my bill sure hasn't .


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer;3171397 said:


> Well, I'm *sure* they will move to it at some point since it uses like 30% the bandwidth of H.264. That would allow for less compression, but I think DTV is more interested in adding channels, not reducing compression ratios.
> 
> Too bad, the PQ has really gone down since ~2000... but my bill sure hasn't .


You mean SD quality, right?

You know there is this new thing called HD?


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> Hope not. I'd hate to give up my HR20-700 w/ built in OTA.


If and when it does, you replace it with a newer model with an AM21 attached. Works exactly the same as your aging HR20. I still have one HR20, but only one, my other 2 are newer with AM21's...works exactly the same. Just because the HR20 has built-in OTA is no reason to hang onto it today since they have a newer equivalent.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

But the reality is we're talking a long time, if it happens and requires new hardware. There's a big difference from when they moved HD from MPEG2 to MPEG4. There are a LOT more receivers that would need replaced.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> You mean SD quality, right?
> 
> You know there is this new thing called HD?


No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.

Have you ever actually looked at the HD picture from not 15' or whatever away? I know you don't sit 2" from the TV, but look at it that close once. Lots of compression artifacts, pixelation, jaggies, gradiation issues, etc. I sit about 12' away from my 50" TV and I can see compression artifacts, etc. quite often. Not my signal. Everything is all 90+.

Do you have OTA hooked up? Do a side by side of a 1080i program from OTA vs. the same channel from DirecTV. You'll see the OTA version is quite a bit sharper.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

As H.264 [MPEG-4/AVC] came , the H.265 will be implemented in FW of stat muxers and new STB chips comes out, then DTV and dish and others will deploy new compression without hesitation.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer;3171507 said:


> No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.
> 
> Have you ever actually looked at the HD picture from not 15' or whatever away? I know you don't sit 2" from the TV, but look at it that close once. Lots of compression artifacts, pixelation, jaggies, gradiation issues, etc. I sit about 12' away from my 50" TV and I can see compression artifacts, etc. quite often. Not my signal. Everything is all 90+.
> 
> Do you have OTA hooked up? Do a side by side of a 1080i program from OTA vs. the same channel from DirecTV. You'll see the OTA version is quite a bit sharper.


Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> But the reality is we're talking a long time, if it happens and requires new hardware. There's a big difference from when they moved HD from MPEG2 to MPEG4. There are a LOT more receivers that would need replaced.


Exactly. A move to H265 would require a swap out of millions of existing HD boxes. The newest generation Directv just introduced might have chipsets that support the new algorithms, but all the others have much older chips.

As dpeters mentioned, this would be a much bigger project than the MPEG2 to 4 switchout from a couple years ago. And even then there were lots of customer complaints and additional costs involved. And, remember, back then there were only a handful of MPEG2 channels. There are over a 100 MPEG4 channels now that would have to be converted.

I believe 50-60% of Directv customers are now HD subscribers, so they have at least one HD box. That's 10-12 million boxes that might have to be swapped out. Will D* roll out H265? Sure, it'll probably happen eventually, but it isn't going to happen very soon.


----------



## Tom_S (Apr 9, 2002)

The fact that they are still on MPEG-2 for their standard definition channels should tell you something about future upgrading.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.


Well -that was a switch from bit-starved over-compressed MPEG2 to MPEG4.

You can't get better than the original MPEG2 the broadcasters use regardless of the type of re-processing compression used.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

For me, I'll take the MPEG4 we have over much less recording hours on MPEG2. I honestly have no complaints on HD quality with DirecTV.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.
> 
> Have you ever actually looked at the HD picture from not 15' or whatever away? I know you don't sit 2" from the TV, but look at it that close once. Lots of compression artifacts, pixelation, jaggies, gradiation issues, etc. I sit about 12' away from my 50" TV and I can see compression artifacts, etc. quite often. Not my signal. Everything is all 90+.
> 
> Do you have OTA hooked up? Do a side by side of a 1080i program from OTA vs. the same channel from DirecTV. You'll see the OTA version is quite a bit sharper.


I did until I decided to upgrade to an HR34 and retired my HR20. I had made extensive tests of OTA vs. DIRECTV® and found no difference in acuity, contrast or saturation. (Even though I was expecting OTA to edge out the satellite transmission!)

I sit 8' from a Samsung 58" plasma that's two years old.

What model and age TV have you?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> Well -that was a switch from bit-starved over-compressed MPEG2 to MPEG4.
> 
> You can't get better than the original MPEG2 the broadcasters use regardless of the type of re-processing compression used.


Who can't? :lol: Mike, seriously, you don't think there could be better codecs than MPEG2? Basis?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Who can't? :lol: Mike, seriously, you don't think there could be better codecs than MPEG2? Basis?


No one can!

I didn't say any codec was better than another. All I mean is that DirecTV cannot make the MPEG2 they receive from the broadcaster any better no matter what they do to it.

It can only go down from there.

The quality of the MPEG4 equipment will/does determine how much worse the re-encoded MPEG4 or MPEGWHATEVER will be - if any. But it won't be better than the original!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.


I dunno, I'm looking at my TV on "mainstream" HD channels, and I see gradiations, pixelation, jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. Its not a bad picture mind you, but its not a good picture either. I shouldn't see that kind of stuff on the mainstream HD channels like USA, CNN, etc. Ok, I'd expect to see it on the obscure channels like Golf and Fishing channels.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mreposter said:


> Exactly. A move to H265 would require a swap out of millions of existing HD boxes. The newest generation Directv just introduced might have chipsets that support the new algorithms, but all the others have much older chips.


Well, I'd be surprised if current hardware can do H265. You can't really do it in software as it is MUCH more intensive then H264.



mreposter said:


> There are over a 100 MPEG4 channels now that would have to be converted.


Thats irrelevant. One channel = 100 channels. Same difference.

With the MPEG2 -> MPEG4, they also switched from Ka -> Ku, so that was the big expense. If they can do H265 on the Ku band, they won't have to swap out anything except the boxes (even the latest boxes don't have the horsepower to do H265 via software only). With the Ka -> Ku switch, they had to launch new satellites, switch out all LNBs, multi-switches, new STBs, etc.

I was thinking about my original question, and honestly, it doesn't really make financial sense for DTV to switch out to H265 any time soon. Not like there are 100's of HD channels that they need to add.

They can add all the locals they want with spot beaming.

They don't care about compression ratios since they keep upping the bills and people keep paying and they aren't getting enough PQ complaints.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I did until I decided to upgrade to an HR34 and retired my HR20. I had made extensive tests of OTA vs. DIRECTV® and found no difference in acuity, contrast or saturation. (Even though I was expecting OTA to edge out the satellite transmission!)
> 
> I sit 8' from a Samsung 58" plasma that's two years old.
> 
> What model and age TV have you?


Panasonic 50" 1080p. Probably 5 to 6 yrs old.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Mike Greer said:


> No one can!
> 
> I didn't say any codec was better than another. All I mean is that DirecTV cannot make the MPEG2 they receive from the broadcaster any better no matter what they do to it.


Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.

I can't comment on what compression ratio they are using now since I don't know, but I do remember reading somewhere that they compress certain channels more then others. Like sports they compress less then the news or movies, etc.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3171677 said:


> No one can!
> 
> I didn't say any codec was better than another. All I mean is that DirecTV cannot make the MPEG2 they receive from the broadcaster any better no matter what they do to it.
> 
> ...


...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.


----------



## macfan601 (May 4, 2012)

SledgeHammer said:


> I dunno, I'm looking at my TV on "mainstream" HD channels, and I see gradiations, pixelation, jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. Its not a bad picture mind you, but its not a good picture either. I shouldn't see that kind of stuff on the mainstream HD channels like USA, CNN, etc. Ok, I'd expect to see it on the obscure channels like Golf and Fishing channels.


I think you need to have your setup looked at. I sure don't see what you are describing on my two LCD TV sets or when using my home theater projector. Sure I get digital blocks once in a great while due to atmospheric conditions but that is the worst I have.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I see some of those same artifacts on BD disks as well...all digitial video is subject to some of those artifacts. I have not seen better broadcast PQ from any provider, I know some say there are a few. And I can see a slight difference between HD locals and OTA locals.


----------



## charlie460 (Sep 12, 2009)

I have also noticed somewhat sub-par picture quality up close, even with MPEG-4 things can still be bitstarved, but from normal viewing distance it looks fine. I can't complain really, it's less bitstarved than any of my other choices for TV providers.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.
> 
> I can't comment on what compression ratio they are using now since I don't know, but I do remember reading somewhere that they compress certain channels more then others. Like sports they compress less then the news or movies, etc.


I think we are talking about two different things... I'm talking about re-processing will always have some kind of loss of quality in this case. MPEG is not a loss-less compression method.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.


Well thank you for dragging me up to present day Mr. Friendly.

Maybe you could enlighten all of us on which locals are creating any non-mpeg2 content on their own?

Some details would help I guess.

So are they now producing their content in MPEG4 and then re-encoding to MPEG2? Or maybe DirecTV has installed local MPEG2-to-MPEG4 encoding equipment at the broadcasters facitily? Last time I checked the broadcasters had to broadcast MPEG2 if they wanted anyone to be able to actually use their broadcasts.

Seems rather unlikely that my local channels are going to cough up the money to pay for MPEG4 that is only useful to DirecTV and Dish Network. But, what do I know - I'm living in the 80's!:lol:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> I see some of those same artifacts on BD disks as well...all digitial video is subject to some of those artifacts. I have not seen better broadcast PQ from any provider, I know some say there are a few. And I can see a slight difference between HD locals and OTA locals.


Agreed - last time I checked there was only a slight difference between OTA and DirecTV. You have to look very closely - maybe a little more noticeable with fast changing screens - especially things like fireworks.

DirecTV does seem to do a good job with the locals - at least with my locals.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3171741 said:


> Well thank you for dragging me up to present day Mr. Friendly.
> 
> Maybe you could enlighten all of us on which locals are creating any non-mpeg2 content on their own?
> 
> ...


ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and ESPN have all migrated to MPEG-4 transmissions, just to name a few.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and ESPN have all migrated to MPEG-4 transmissions, just to name a few.


Really?

So when I watch something on CBS who is doing the transcoding? DirecTV, my local broadcaster or CBS? How about when I watch my local news?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Really?
> 
> So when I watch something on CBS who is doing the transcoding? DirecTV, my local broadcaster or CBS? How about when I watch my local news?


It depends on your local channels technology. I believe some locals have direct uplinks to DirecTV & do so in mpeg4.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3171784 said:


> Really?
> 
> So when I watch something on CBS who is doing the transcoding? DirecTV, my local broadcaster or CBS? How about when I watch my local news?


It depends on the delivery method and/or route. As for locals, they were required to update equipment. I don't know much about the in-between, only that many have already migrated to MPEG-4. It was big news elsewhere.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> It depends on your local channels technology. I believe some locals have direct uplinks to DirecTV & do so in mpeg4.


Yes - I was hoping the Hoosier205 could give us details on who does the MPEG encoding.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> It depends on the delivery method and/or route. As for locals, they were required to update equipment. I don't know much about the in-between, only that many have already migrated to MPEG-4. It was big news elsewhere.


So you don't know?!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

As I said earlier, bottom line, when DirecTV receives the MPEG2 or MPEG4 (just so Mr. Hoosier doesn't get upset) from the local stations and then re-encodes it the quality does not go up. 

They do a good job in my market and the quality is 'close enough' for me but there is a slight difference compared to OTA. You can't use 'lossy' compression without a loss.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer;3171702 said:


> I dunno, I'm looking at my TV on "mainstream" HD channels, and I see gradiations, pixelation, jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. Its not a bad picture mind you, but its not a good picture either. I shouldn't see that kind of stuff on the mainstream HD channels like USA, CNN, etc. Ok, I'd expect to see it on the obscure channels like Golf and Fishing channels.


And yet they show up on directv which only recodes and does not dowrez and fios which does neither. Actually, some feeds are mpeg4 from the source and directv does nothing to them.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3171825 said:


> As I said earlier, bottom line, when DirecTV receives the MPEG2 or MPEG4 (just so Mr. Hoosier doesn't get upset) from the local stations and then re-encodes it the quality does not go up.
> 
> They do a good job in my market and the quality is 'close enough' for me but there is a slight difference compared to OTA. You can't use 'lossy' compression without a loss.


Who claimed that the quality goes up?


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

DIRECTV provides nine Portland, OR local stations in HD from one transponder. If there was a time to tell a quality difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 codecs, it should be in this DMA.

So, fwiw, I cannot see any difference between OTA and SAT provided locals. In fact, locals from the SAT look slightly better to me. I'm not sure of the format that DIRECTV receives those channels but I do know that some are delivered by fiber.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Actually, some feeds are mpeg4 from the source and directv does nothing to them.


I'm not sure, Hoosier will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think DirecTV passes anything along untouched... As in bit-for-bit what they receive. They have to mux multipe channels together and need to control the bandwidth.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

SledgeHammer said:


> No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.
> 
> Have you ever actually looked at the HD picture from not 15' or whatever away? I know you don't sit 2" from the TV, but look at it that close once. Lots of compression artifacts, pixelation, jaggies, gradiation issues, etc. I sit about 12' away from my 50" TV and I can see compression artifacts, etc. quite often. Not my signal. Everything is all 90+.
> 
> Do you have OTA hooked up? Do a side by side of a 1080i program from OTA vs. the same channel from DirecTV. You'll see the OTA version is quite a bit sharper.





tonyd79 said:


> Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.





Laxguy said:


> Who can't? :lol: Mike, seriously, you don't think there could be better codecs than MPEG2? Basis?





SledgeHammer said:


> Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.
> 
> I can't comment on what compression ratio they are using now since I don't know, but I do remember reading somewhere that they compress certain channels more then others. Like sports they compress less then the news or movies, etc.





Hoosier205 said:


> Who claimed that the quality goes up?


All missunderstandings.... Just trying to clear things up....


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

SledgeHammer;3171717 said:


> Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.
> 
> I can't comment on what compression ratio they are using now since I don't know, but I do remember reading somewhere that they compress certain channels more then others. Like sports they compress less then the news or movies, etc.


It is already compressed and packaged when the broadcaster transmits it. The provider isn't doing that, aside from any additional compression necessary for their delivery system. The closest you'll get to a 8K -> 1080p type of scenario is if you are looking at the live, unaltered feed in a production truck at a live event or you are in the studio for a production. Once a network has it ready for transmission, it's already in their resolution (1080i or 720p) and bitrate of choice. Now, the provider can still reduce that resolution and bitrate. Some are better about it than others.

MPEG-4 is far more efficient than MPEG-2. Things have gotten better for us since DirecTV and various networks migrated to MPEG-4.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The migration driven by squeeze more channels per mux/tpn. As HD-Lite.

It would be silly to procure it as willing to make picture better for us, customers.


----------



## charlie460 (Sep 12, 2009)

All the new HD adds are nice, but it sucks that PQ is being sacrificed to squeeze more channels in per TPN... When will the new sat be operational?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

2014. So you're saying that you can tell the difference between a channel that is on a TPN with extra channels than another (and isn't related to the source)?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

charlie460 said:


> All the new HD adds are nice, but it sucks that PQ is being sacrificed to squeeze more channels in per TPN... When will the new sat be operational?


Really? PQ is NOT being sacrificed. The more channels per transponder were because of improvements in encoding, not in picture loss.

No one has shown a degradation in PQ and we have a lot of very picky people around here.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

tonyd79 said:


> *Really? PQ is NOT being sacrificed.* The more channels per transponder were because of improvements in encoding, not in picture loss.
> 
> No one has shown a degradation in PQ and we have a lot of very picky people around here.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.


Yes, the funny part is that fios, which has an unassailed reputation for not doing anything to the feeds is actually transcoding from MPEG4 to MPEG2 for several channels, including HBO.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.


Please define what you mean by compression. They do transcode to MPEG4 for the channels not already in MPEG4. That does compress but does not mean that data is lost.

But your example was a downrez example. So I am confused.

It has been shown that DirecTV is NOT downrezzing HD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

tonyd79 said:


> Please define what you mean by compression. They do transcode to MPEG4 for the channels not already in MPEG4. *That does compress but does not mean that data is lost.*
> 
> But your example was a downrez example. So I am confused.
> 
> It has been shown that DirecTV is NOT downrezzing HD.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Please define what you mean by compression. They do transcode to MPEG4 for the channels not already in MPEG4. That does compress but does not mean that data is lost.
> 
> But your example was a downrez example. So I am confused.
> 
> It has been shown that DirecTV is NOT downrezzing HD.


Yes, bad example . A transcode compression would be more like ripping a dual layer DVD down to 4.7GB so you can fit it on a single layer. Same resolution, just compressed to 75% or whatever of the original vs. a 1:1 rip.

Or like when somebody posts a movie online and its a 300MB file for a 2hr movie.

At a certain compression ratio (same resolution), you start to see artifacts.

Can somebody in the know actual confirm that DirecTV is passing on the broadcast AS IS without compressing it further to save bandwidth?

TBH, I would find that EXTREMELY hard to believe. I can't imagine that DirecTV gets the same quality feed from NBC or FOX or CNN that we get in our houses. I suspect it is much higher quality and compressed down for broadcast.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yes, bad example . A transcode compression would be more like ripping a dual layer DVD down to 4.7GB so you can fit it on a single layer. Same resolution, just compressed to 75% or whatever of the original vs. a 1:1 rip.
> 
> Or like when somebody posts a movie online and its a 300MB file for a 2hr movie.
> 
> ...


You better ask me how to win a million in lotto ?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Ok, guys... found some stats to "back up my claim" 

BluRay quality is typically around 40Mb/s and DirecTV HD is around 8Mb/s.

Found that info right here on DbsTalk .

So what I was saying, was DirecTV probably gets it from the broadcaster in "BluRay quality" and compresses to 25% or whatever.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.


HBO completed there transition in October 2009.

That being said, it is entirely likely that one method is more "recompressable" than the other.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Found that info right here on DbsTalk .


You should have offered a link to it to establish the context. Things may (or may not) be different now with six channels/TP.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> You should have offered a link to it to establish the context. Things may (or may not) be different now with six channels/TP.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2460720#post2460720

Its from 2010, but...


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

SledgeHammer;3172011 said:


> Yes, bad example . A transcode compression would be more like ripping a dual layer DVD down to 4.7GB so you can fit it on a single layer. Same resolution, just compressed to 75% or whatever of the original vs. a 1:1 rip.
> 
> Or like when somebody posts a movie online and its a 300MB file for a 2hr movie.
> 
> ...


I understood what you meant, it just got lost a bit with that example.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, guys... found some stats to "back up my claim"
> 
> BluRay quality is typically around 40Mb/s and DirecTV HD is around 8Mb/s.
> 
> ...


You are not understanding encoding at all. Mere size does not tell you what you are getting but no one is going to tell you that DirecTV or ANY broadcast is at Blu Ray level, anyway.

You compared transcoding to ripping to a CD. Ripping is a sampling technique. Coding is not a sampling technique. It is a method of maintaining data in a more efficient form.

It is more like running WinZip to save size on your disk drive. WinZip stores the data differently to compact it but the data is there. I am not saying that transcoding is perfect but it is more akin to zip than it is to rip.

Edit: Besides, your claim fails. Everyone agrees that quality got much better when DirecTV went from MPEG2 to MPEG4, which allowed them to better utilize the bandwidth and get more data to your screen.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

yeah, like WinZip ... sure my butt ...

to your please - lecture us as H.263 slices (I,B,P) transforming into H.264 ... don't hesitate to details each little step


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

P Smith said:


> yeah, like WinZip ... sure my butt ...
> 
> to your please - lecture us as H.263 slices (I,B,P) transforming into H.264 ... don't hesitate to details each little step


Closer than to rip. That was the point.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

P Smith;3172064 said:


> yeah, like WinZip ... sure my butt ...
> 
> to your please - lecture us as H.263 slices (I,B,P) transforming into H.264 ... don't hesitate to details each little step


What?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> And yet they show up on directv which only recodes and does not dowrez and fios which does neither. Actually, some feeds are mpeg4 from the source and directv does nothing to them.


Because most everyone (except uVerse) uses adaptive bitrate encoding to squeeze multiple channels into a multiplex, I think it unlikely that any carrier is passing a signal straight through.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Hoosier205 said:


> What?


skip it, it's too much for you


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

P Smith;3172070 said:


> skip it, it's too much for you


I was looking for a translator, not an explanation.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

that was the point


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

harsh said:


> Because most everyone (except uVerse) uses adaptive bitrate encoding to squeeze multiple channels into a multiplex, I think it unlikely that any carrier is passing a signal straight through.


Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.

But, of course, I am sure you can make claims about other services you do not have.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

P Smith;3172075 said:


> that was the point


Your posts are hard to understand, but not due to their substance.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> I was looking for a translator, not an explanation.


Due to the mind-boggling complexity of the syntax of the Elbonian language, the Universal Translator produces only hairballs when processing P Smith's dialog.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh;3172096 said:


> Due to the mind-boggling complexity of the syntax of the Elbonian language, the Universal Translator produces only hairballs when processing P Smith's dialog.


I had to look it up, but I'm glad I did. Nice one.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

move on ... get to the technical point of conversion H.263 to H.264 slices ...[it would be relevant part of discussion, as we talking about video compression, not stream conforming to MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 format]


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tonyd79 said:


> Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.


When and where did they claim that?

Verizon continues to let the public believe that they are offering a modern IPTV service when they're actually using a conventional QAM system just as all the cable TV carriers do.

We also know that FIOS uses MoCA and that puts an upper limit on their available bandwidth so working backwards, we take 580 channels (150+ in HD) and pack it all into about 1.2GHz and the math doesn't add up. The HD channels alone would seem to consume the entire bandwidth budget.

I suspect that this "hands off" thing is another one of those items of lore that Verizon is willing to let the consumers believe even though it isn't true.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Ok, you guys are just arguing semantics now about my analogies. Point is, they compress the signal further beyond what they got originally from the network. They may or may not down rez it. I would be extremely surprised if FOX is putting out such a signal.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I'd be surprised if current hardware can do H265.


It can't.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

H.265 is not finalized yet.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

DirecTV hasn't even finished the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 transition. By its nature, large scale broadcast installations like DirecTV or Dish or the local cable company will always be behind the times. MPEG-4 hit at just the right time and DirecTV jumped on it. They could have waited, but they needed the improved bandwidth and there were dirt cheap decoder chips ready then. H.265 will take a long time to get finalized, rolled out, perfected, etc. By the time DirecTV is ready to do another transition there will be something better out there.



SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I'd be surprised if current hardware can do H265. You can't really do it in software as it is MUCH more intensive then H264.
> 
> Thats irrelevant. One channel = 100 channels. Same difference.
> 
> ...


The Ku->Ka transition and the MPEG-4 transition, at a technical level, have nothing to do with one another. They could have easily (and I think do/have in the past) put MPEG-4 streams on the older Ku satellites. They just happened to have the satellites available (from the demise of the Spaceway internet plans) and just happened to be doing the MPEG-4 transition, so why not tie them together. It was a business decision, not a technical requirement to make MPEG-4 work. At any rate, the STBs and labor are the big cost drivers, not new dishes or LNBs. And they will always build new satellites no matter what, so the cost of a new satellite doesn't really factor into the equation (especially because the Ka birds probably weren't significantly more expensive than a Ku bird on a cost-per-bitrate basis)



Mike Greer said:


> Really?
> 
> So when I watch something on CBS who is doing the transcoding? DirecTV, my local broadcaster or CBS? How about when I watch my local news?


DirecTV, at some point, is always doing some kind of transcoding or compression of the signals they're sending up. With locals, they have two options of receiving the signal--a direct fiber feed from the station or an off-air antenna. Either way, they're receiving an "uncompressed" signal (definitely ATSC if using an antenna, and I'd assume it's likely the fiber feeds contain whatever the station sends to the broadcast tower--an MPEG-2 stream).



Hoosier205 said:


> It is already compressed and packaged when the broadcaster transmits it. The provider isn't doing that, aside from any additional compression necessary for their delivery system. The closest you'll get to a 8K -> 1080p type of scenario is if you are looking at the live, unaltered feed in a production truck at a live event or you are in the studio for a production. Once a network has it ready for transmission, it's already in their resolution (1080i or 720p) and bitrate of choice. Now, the provider can still reduce that resolution and bitrate. Some are better about it than others.
> 
> MPEG-4 is far more efficient than MPEG-2. Things have gotten better for us since DirecTV and various networks migrated to MPEG-4.


Wrong. The provider always re-encodes it (except for analog channels on cable). The signal provided by the programmer is always very high resolution and high bandwidth, and the providers don't have the bandwidth to turn that directly around to you.



tonyd79 said:


> Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.
> 
> But, of course, I am sure you can make claims about other services you do not have.


If Verizon is saying that, they're lying. FIOS is QAM cable, and then they use RF over Glass to convert it to fiber optics. It's not IPTV, and it is absolutely re-encoded because those signals from the programmers wouldn't be compatible with their set top boxes or your TV


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

JosephB;3172242 said:


> The signal provided by the programmer is always very high resolution and high bandwidth


That is not the case.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Hoosier205 said:


> That is not the case.


Well, I will grant you that those terms are subjective and my definition of "high" or "very high" may not be the same as yours. And, I probably shouldn't have included resolution (that wouldn't change). However, the signal provided by the programmer will be a higher quality than the signal coming from DirecTV


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

JosephB;3172268 said:


> Well, I will grant you that those terms are subjective and my definition of "high" or "very high" may not be the same as yours. And, I probably shouldn't have included resolution (that wouldn't change). However, the signal provided by the programmer will be a higher quality than the signal coming from DirecTV


I agree. I guess my point was that it isn't sent to the provider at as high a quality as it was when the content was created. A poor way of describing it, but: created as lossless in all its original glory, reformatted to still high quality lossy version and sent to the provider, then degraded a bit more in delivery by the provider.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

No one broadcasts 40Mb/s bitrate like you can find in higher bitrate sections of BD disks. Even OTA broadcasts, which are the least compressed broadcast tv you could get into your home currently, maxes out around 18Mb/s(I think, maybe its 13) and most/many are still in MPEG2 format, with stations that are using their full allocated bandwidth for 1 primary and no sub-channels. 18Mb/s mpeg2 is equivalent to maybe 10-ish or so mpeg4.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Where do you come by this conclusion?
> 
> Some compressions are lossless, and there are varying degrees of lossiness. And what is lost is more important than how much is discarded.


Heck, even Blu-Ray audio/video is compressed.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

dpeters11 said:


> Heck, even Blu-Ray audio/video is compressed.


Quite true, but that is quite honestly the consumer in-home gold standard we have to go by currently.


----------



## ccrowe3 (Jun 24, 2010)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.


And then DirecTV then reduces the bitrate further and seems to be trying to pack in more channels per transponder than they previously did. It is approaching Dish Network quality after some of the recent additions.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I have not come across a person that can legitimately tell the difference between a transponder with 5 channels vs 6 etc.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

ccrowe3;3173142 said:


> And then DirecTV then reduces the bitrate further and seems to be trying to pack in more channels per transponder than they previously did. It is approaching Dish Network quality after some of the recent additions.


That is not the case. They found a way to use their capacity more efficiently without reducing picture quality.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> That is not the case. They found a way to use their capacity more efficiently without reducing picture quality.


Magic?

DirecTV knows that most people are 'OK' with dumbing it down. DirecTV's bread and butter is in the middle of the crowd of people that perfectly are happy with squat-o-vision and over-compressed bit-starved crap. Many would be surprised at how many people think they are watching HD but aren't. The people that won't put up with over-cramming are in a tiny minority and DirecTV knows it and will continue to cram as much as they can into the space they have. Unless people start caring about it and letting DirecTV know they care bad things are going to happen....

DirecTV had HD-Lite for years so we know they are willing to dumb-it-down. It's only a matter of how much they will and how many people will complain to them about it.

The reasoning will be - we only need to do it 'temporarily' until we get the new birds in the sky....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

So, Mike, I might I conclude your PQ has diminished markedly over the last year? Or is your plaint largely leveled at the poor SD picture?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Magic?
> 
> DirecTV knows that most people are 'OK' with dumbing it down. DirecTV's bread and butter is in the middle of the crowd of people that perfectly are happy with squat-o-vision and over-compressed bit-starved crap. Many would be surprised at how many people think they are watching HD but aren't. The people that won't put up with over-cramming are in a tiny minority and DirecTV knows it and will continue to cram as much as they can into the space they have. Unless people start caring about it and letting DirecTV know they care bad things are going to happen....
> 
> ...


This forum is full of PQ snobs... If DirecTV PQ was suffering there would be a lot of posts about it.

Edit to add... AVS Forum would be full of posts, too.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Nothing noticeable has changed. Some people had found some engineering documents that explained the new technology and how it does the same PQ with less.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Sixto;3173179 said:


> Nothing noticeable has changed. Some people had found some engineering documents that explained the new technology and how it does the same PQ with less.


+1


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> So, Mike, I might I conclude your PQ has diminished markedly over the last year? Or is your plaint largely leveled at the poor SD picture?


Nope - not that I have noticed but after the last round of 'HD-Lite' I expect to have lower picture quality sometime in the future. I figure they'll add more HD to cover more crap channels and at some point people will start to notice the picture quality going down....

My personal opinion is that it goes along with the speed of their DVRs. No need to spend money as long as the masses don't complain.

If I want quality I do Blu-Ray. I can't even use Dolby Digital with my AVR because there too many break ups - at least when I checked last. Sucks but somehow I don't think enough people complain about it to make even a little blip on their radar.

DirecTV is a corporation that has one goal - to make money. If they can cut down on the picture quality to save money and only get complaints from a fraction of their subs they will do it without even a tiny bit of hesitation. That is what the stock holders expect and that's what they'll get.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> This forum is full of PQ snobs... If DirecTV PQ was suffering there would be a lot of posts about it.
> 
> Edit to add... AVS Forum would be full of posts, too.


Yep - PQ snobs - but nothing wrong with that!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Sixto said:


> Nothing noticeable has changed. Some people had found some engineering documents that explained the new technology and how it does the same PQ with less.





Hoosier205 said:


> +1


I didn't mean to suggest that the PQ has gone down - only that it will.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Mike Greer said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that the PQ has gone down - only that it will.


I've been tracking HD daily for several years now and have seen no indication that this is or will be the case, especially with the D14 satellite expected early-2014. The future is always unknown, but the HD PQ area has been excellent for years, and appears to be very well thought out.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173229 said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that the PQ has gone down - only that it will.


Considering how few HD channels are left to be added and the capacity they will have after the sat launch next year...I see no reason to believe that at all.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Mike Greer said:


> Nope - not that I have noticed but after the last round of 'HD-Lite' I expect to have lower picture quality sometime in the future.


HD-Lite hasn't been around since they migrated the old MPEG2 HD channels to the MPEG4 versions so it's been a few years. IMHO it was a necessary evil back then, DIRECTV didn't have the transponder space to do it right back then so they were kind of forced into doing it just to be able to provide a limited number of HD channels. Times have change, there's now MPEG4, new KA satellites and newer encoders to allow for better utilization of bandwidth.



Mike Greer said:


> If I want quality I do Blu-Ray.


OK, compare Blu-Ray with data rates that can go into the 20Mbps range to DBS where streams are usually under 10Mbps, something has to suffer.



Mike Greer said:


> I can't even use Dolby Digital with my AVR because there too many break ups - at least when I checked last. Sucks but somehow I don't think enough people complain about it to make even a little blip on their radar.


I used DD all the time, one though a Denon via HDMI and another via TOSLINK to an Onkyo and haven't had the DD5.1 drop problem in many months.



Mike Greer said:


> DirecTV is a corporation that has one goal - to make money. If they can cut down on the picture quality to save money and only get complaints from a fraction of their subs they will do it without even a tiny bit of hesitation. That is what the stock holders expect and that's what they'll get.


What corporation doesn't do that? If you're looking for a provider that's going to give you BR video/audio quality I don't think you're going to find any out there, maybe FIOS would get close but only a small portion of the US has access to it. Sure, DIRECTV could go and spend millions and launch a bunch of additional satellites and put two or three channels on a transponder but nobody would want to pay what that would need to charge for the service. Look at the folks that b*tch every year when their bill goes up $4 to $6 per month, forget DBS, I'm going to OTA and Netflix/Hulu downloads, $'s trump PQ for the vast majority of customers.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Sixto said:


> I've been tracking HD daily for several years now and have seen no indication that this is or will be the case, especially with the D14 satellite expected early-2014. The future is always unknown, but the HD PQ area has been excellent for years, and appears to be very well thought out.





Hoosier205 said:


> Considering how few HD channels are left to be added and the capacity they will have after the sat launch next year...I see no reason to believe that at all.


I hope you're correct - I just can't see DirecTV spending hundreds of millions in profit if they can keep that cash and lower the PQ a bit.

I don't want it, don't see it now, but I just see them trying to please us snobs when we don't have anywhere else to go....


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> HD-Lite hasn't been around since they migrated the old MPEG2 HD channels to the MPEG4 versions so it's been a few years. IMHO it was a necessary evil back then, DIRECTV didn't have the transponder space to do it right back then so they were kind of forced into doing it just to be able to provide a limited number of HD channels. Times have change, there's now MPEG4, new KA satellites and newer encoders to allow for better utilization of bandwidth.


But... When they try to catch up with cable's OnDemand who is to say HD-Lite won't become a necessary evil again? The bottom line is the most important.



RAD said:


> OK, compare Blu-Ray with data rates that can go into the 20Mbps range to DBS where streams are usually under 10Mbps, something has to suffer.


I don't expect DirecTV to do Blu-Ray quality - it would be cool but won't happen!



RAD said:


> I used DD all the time, one though a Denon via HDMI and another via TOSLINK to an Onkyo and haven't had the DD5.1 drop problem in many months.


I'll have to try it again - I've had it off for 6 or 7 months because it was too distracting.... Maybe it's fixed now. That would be good news.



RAD said:


> What corporation doesn't do that? If you're looking for a provider that's going to give you BR video/audio quality I don't think you're going to find any out there, maybe FIOS would get close but only a small portion of the US has access to it. Sure, DIRECTV could go and spend millions and launch a bunch of additional satellites and put two or three channels on a transponder but nobody would want to pay what that would need to charge for the service. Look at the folks that b*tch every year when their bill goes up $4 to $6 per month, forget DBS, I'm going to OTA and Netflix/Hulu downloads, $'s trump PQ for the vast majority of customers.
> 
> Just my two cents.


Exactly! That's why I expect PQ to go down. PQ will be cut long before profits get cut.

I'm not saying they should be any other way - I'd like to have full bit rate 8K TV with lossless audio but I also live in the real world and understand people are not going to pay what that would take.

I think we are in agreement here!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173254 said:


> But... When they try to catch up with cable's OnDemand who is to say HD-Lite won't become a necessary evil again? The bottom line is the most important.


...what? On Demand content isn't delivered by satellite. It would have no impact on this.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...what? On Demand content isn't delivered by satellite. It would have no impact on this.


I didn't say OnDemand was delivered over satellite.

I'm saying it will be in the future - at least to some extent anyway.

DirecTV's current OnDemand is a laughable and hardly functional compared to what cable can do. Not because DirecTV doesn't want to make it better but it is a huge problem for them.

OnDemand is just about the only thing cable can and does do better than DirecTV. I'm sure DirecTV is working on some way to improve it but they have a long way to go and new codecs and delivering OnDemand over satellite is really their only hope.

At least I hope they are working on it....

I know a few people with cable that don't understand why people pay for DVRs... OnDemand from cable has massive massive content and it is instant, has all the perks of a DVR without having a DVR. Obviously not everyone feels that way - especially sports freaks.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173266 said:


> It will be in the future - at least to some extent anyway.


What are you basing this conclusion on?



Mike Greer;3173266 said:


> DirecTV's OnDemand is a joke compared to what cable can do.


I live in a substantial Comcast footprint and DirecTV's On Demand product is very competitive with it. I'd say DirecTV's might even be better after their HBO On Demand updates last year.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Mike Greer said:


> I didn't say OnDemand was delivered over satellite.
> 
> I'm saying it will be in the future - at least to some extent anyway.
> 
> ...


What is better about cables OnDemand that would be made better on DIRECTV by reducing PQ? Yes, cable OnDemand may have more content and HD content then DIRECTV but I don't see how reducing PQ on DIRECTV would help that? When I had cable a few years ago (Comcast) I didn't think it was that great since every now and then when I selected a program to view I couldn't because all the channels on my node for OnDemand were in use. DIRECTV's on Demand service isn't as instant as cable but with the new "Watch Now" feature HD program start playing within 10 seconds.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

RAD said:


> HD-Lite hasn't been around since they migrated the old MPEG2 HD channels to the MPEG4 versions so it's been a few years ...


Yep, 21 HD channels went "live" on 9/26/2007, will be going on 6 years soon, all has been fine PQ-wise for a long time.

And if anyone looks closely at this, DirecTV could have easily caved a long time ago and cut the quality. It's been wildly obvious that they've been sticking to keeping the quality, based on how they're carefully rolled out new HD.

As least for now, and based on what they've done daily for almost 6 years now, I've seen no indication of profit getting in the way of PQ. Profit may certainly have affected the quarterly capital cycle, and the carefully timed (and spread) roll-out over the years, but no indication of any quality sacrifices.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> What are you basing this conclusion on?
> 
> I live in a substantial Comcast footprint and DirecTV's On Demand product is very competitive with it. I'd say DirecTV's might even be better after their HBO On Demand updates last year.


I'm basing it on the embarrassment that DirecTV calls On-Demand. Obviously I don't have any inside information.... I feel their pain - it's not like it is easy when you're dealing with a national distribution system rather than locally like cable... But they will have to change something if they want to keep calling it OnDemand and want to go head-to-head with cable OnDemand.

DirecTV can increase content - although they have a long way to go but the killer is how instant cable is.

DirecTV has more of a Demand Now-Watch Later system that requires a decent Internet connection to be usable at all.

With cable - at least around here - changing between OnDemand content is darn near as fast as changing channels. With Comcast I could take a quick look at 10 different OnDemand shows before I can get one OnDemand from DirecTV to start playing.... And that's with 50/5meg Internet speed.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> What is better about cables OnDemand that would be made better on DIRECTV by reducing PQ? Yes, cable OnDemand may have more content and HD content then DIRECTV but I don't see how reducing PQ on DIRECTV would help that? When I had cable a few years ago (Comcast) I didn't think it was that great since every now and then when I selected a program to view I couldn't because all the channels on my node for OnDemand were in use. DIRECTV's on Demand service isn't as instant as cable but with the new "Watch Now" feature HD program start playing within 10 seconds.


Speed is the thing... If they want to keep up they'll need to use the satellite link to supply content rather than the users Internet connection. That will lead to yet another bandwidth crunch and the necessary evil coming home again....


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173285 said:


> I'm basing it on the embarrassment that DirecTV calls On-Demand. Obviously I don't have any inside information.... I feel their pain - it's not like it is easy when you're dealing with a national distribution system rather than locally like cable... But they will have to change something if they want to keep calling it OnDemand and want to go head-to-head with cable OnDemand.
> 
> DirecTV can increase content - although they have a long way to go but the killer is how instant cable is.
> 
> ...


Sounds like an issue on your end. On Demand with DirecTV allows you to watch immediately as well.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm not saying DirecTV is evil if they lower the picture quality.... They are not a charity and they'll do what make sense for them financially. It is just my opinion that they will, in the future, lower quality again to save bandwidth - bandwidth=money.

There is a storm brewing for all the providers - more and more people - especially young people are not subscribing to any of them. That is going to hurt the bottom line and DirecTV will need to adjust to survive.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173298 said:


> I'm not saying DirecTV is evil if they lower the picture quality.... They are not a charity and they'll do what make sense for them financially. It is just my opinion that they will, in the future, lower quality again to save bandwidth - bandwidth=money.
> 
> There is a storm brewing for all the providers - more and more people - especially young people are not subscribing to any of them. That is going to hurt the bottom line and DirecTV will need to adjust to survive.


...yet you haven't offered a valid reason why there would be a bandwidth or capacity issue.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Sounds like an issue on your end. On Demand with DirecTV allows you to watch immediately as well.


Obviously it is a problem on my end...:nono2:

My problem is I don't owe DirecTV anything and can point out their shortcomings. DirecTV can't be perfect or the best at everything there is....

I like DirecTV - I am a subscriber after all.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> ...yet you haven't offered a valid reason why there would be a bandwidth or capacity issue.


Really? Must be a problem on your end!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173302 said:


> Really? Must be a problem on your end!


Capacity won't be an issue and On Demand content isn't going to move to a satellite delivery method. So what else ya got?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Agree with DoD not going to satellite, beyond what they do now with the push of PPV content to HD DVR's. Everything I've seen is DIRECTV is pushing their techs to hook up as many customers that they can to a broadband internet connection for new installs and service calls. This is not only for On Demand content but other services like nomad which requires an internet connection or RVU on Samsung TV's which require an internet connection to download DTCP keys before connecting to a Genie.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Capacity won't be an issue and On Demand content isn't going to move to a satellite delivery method. So what else ya got?


You must be bored again!:lol:

I didn't realize that you had that kind of control over DirecTV and could make those types of decisions.

I bow to your obvious superiority.

Because you know capacity won't be a problem and OnDemand will stay on the Internet will you tell me when DirecTV will offer 4k or 8k TV? When will they have lossless compression at least on audio? Bandwidth is not important so why not do 8k this year?

Why don't they eliminate all those pesky encoders and just pass along what they receive from the content providers untouched? They have plenty of bandwidth after all.

Could you also tell me the winning lottery numbers for this weekend?:hurah:

I think maybe we should just agree to disagree. Truth is neither of us know squat about it.:nono:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> Agree with DoD not going to satellite, beyond what they do now with the push of PPV content to HD DVR's. Everything I've seen is DIRECTV is pushing their techs to hook up as many customers that they can to a broadband internet connection for new installs and service calls. This is not only for On Demand content but other services like nomad which requires an internet connection or RVU on Samsung TV's which require an internet connection to download DTCP keys before connecting to a Genie.


I don't think it will happen 'soon' but if DirecTV is serious about OnDemand they'll have to do something other than require subscribers to also subscribe to DirecTVs competition to make it 'sort of' work!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Greer;3173336 said:


> I don't think it will happen 'soon' but if DirecTV is serious about OnDemand they'll have to do something other than require subscribers to also subscribe to DirecTVs competition to make it 'sort of' work!


Actually, with latest developments (some which may not be in national release yet, I am unsure of that), it is working quite well. I can routinely watch programming in seconds and the resulting picture/sounds are more reliable than anything I've ever seen on Comcast or fios which always have drop outs, jitters, etc. so, it is more than 'sort of' working.

As for using a competitor, not all Internet providers are competitors.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

You are making this incredibly easy.



Mike Greer;3173330 said:


> I didn't realize that you had that kind of control over DirecTV and could make those types of decisions.


I don't. Logic will get you a long way however. There are not enough existing or potential HD channels to cause them capacity issues after the launch next year. On Demand is delivered the way it is because satellite delivery is not viable for that type of content and nothing about that will change.



Mike Greer;3173330 said:


> When will they have lossless compression at least on audio? Bandwidth is not important so why not do 8k this year?


Lossless audio? I hope you realize that there are no content owners even discussing the distribution of lossless audio for broadcast purposes. Name a single content owner who has mentioned the use of 8K for broadcast. You're imagining things you don't even understand.



Mike Greer;3173330 said:


> Why don't they eliminate all those pesky encoders and just pass along what they receive from the content providers untouched? They have plenty of bandwidth after all.


They very nearly are already.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Actually, with latest developments (some which may not be in national release yet, I am unsure of that), it is working quite well. I can routinely watch programming in seconds and the resulting picture/sounds are more reliable than anything I've ever seen on Comcast or fios which always have drop outs, jitters, etc. so, it is more than 'sort of' working.
> 
> As for using a competitor, not all Internet providers are competitors.


I must not be in an area that has the latest developments.

I just tried to test it - I went to On Demand - HD All - just moving down the list a page at time is enough to make me give up. Very slow... Not a little slow... Not normal DirecTV slow but horribly slow!

I picked a Showtime option and of course I had to set it to record....

I went back to the play list and it was about 2 minutes before I could get more than a few seconds.

I left it running for a bit to see how fast the download was... After about 10 minutes of 'downloading' I could watch about 7 minutes of it... So not quite real time.

The worst part is the menus are so slow and I can't just 'watch' it I have to record it so that forces me to use the slow menu system even more.

Bottom line - DirecTV's OnDemand is not worth it to me.... To slow to navigate and to slow to download.

I can see using it if I know what I want to watch later in the day. I could then start it recording now and then it would be ready tonight...

What's the deal with some of the 'Watch-Now' being $10.99? Wouldn't I just buy the movie? Wow.

So may be ok with it - maybe even most may be ok with it but it sure leaves much to be desired if you've used Comcast's OnDemand - at least around here.

Anyway - the only reason I brought up OnDemand here is/was that I figure DirecTV would try to make the OnDemand experience better... Maybe by using larger hard drives, better codecs and using satellite bandwidth to pre-record popular content or something.

Not all ISPs are going head to head with DirecTV but the biggest and fastest ones are.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> You are making this incredibly easy.
> 
> I don't. Logic will get you a long way however. There are not enough existing or potential HD channels to cause them capacity issues after the launch next year. On Demand is delivered the way it is because satellite delivery is not viable for that type of content and nothing about that will change.
> 
> ...


Easy? Nothing on TV today I guess - I'm happy to entertain you!

At least we agree that satellite delivery is not viable for OnDemand.

I didn't say any content owners are discussing lossless audio or 8K... I do think things will change and the changes are going to require more bandwidth whatever they are.

Imagining things I don't even understand? Really? Now you even know what I understand - you certainly are an amazing person. If only we all had your level of understanding - the world would be a different place!

The encoders are very nearly just passing what they receive? Again, really? Do you have anything to back all this up with or do you just jump from thread to thread spreading your joy?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I just tried it.

On a HR34-700 entered ch 1501, selected all, took 7 seconds to populate the list, selected a program, took 15 seconds until it started playing in HD. 

Did the same thing on a HR24-500, 14 seconds to populate the list, 13 seconds to start playing the recording. 

Internet connection is Time Warner with 15Mbs/2Mbps service. Wife is also streaming HGTV at the same time on her iPad via the DIRECTV iPad application. Both HD DVR's using DECA and connect to my network via a DECA-BB.

Sorry you're not seeing the same thing, but I can live with times like what I'm seeing.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> I just tried it.
> 
> On a HR34-700 entered ch 1501, selected all, took 7 seconds to populate the list, selected a program, took 15 seconds until it started playing in HD.
> 
> ...


I'll try it that way rather than going to 'On Demand' from the menu. Maybe part of my trouble is the I'm looking at ALL HD - not just Showtime.

I think for me to scroll all the way to the bottom of the 'All' list could take an hour or more---- No joke. I push DOWN it waits a second or two and then I watch it fill in the next page.

I also don't doubt that Comcast (My ISP) is screwing with it. My Speeds are normally very quick for just about everything - the service is labeled as 50 down 5 up.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Mike Greer said:


> I'll try it that way rather than going to 'On Demand' from the menu. Maybe part of my trouble is the I'm looking at ALL HD - not just Showtime.


I tried the HD all option from ch 1000 and agree with you, performance is horrible. Looks like it downloads the entire list before displaying a page and then if you select a program and go back it downloads the entire list again, not a user friendly way to do it. Guess I never noticed that since I always go to a channel and then list from there.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

RAD said:


> I tried the HD all option from ch 1000 and agree with you, performance is horrible. Looks like it downloads the entire list before displaying a page and then if you select a program and go back it downloads the entire list again, not a user friendly way to do it. Guess I never noticed that since I always go to a channel and then list from there.


I typically search or go to the channel looking for what I want.

While fios and Comcast menus are snappier, neither (to my knowledge) has a complete list like channel 1000 on DirecTV. Finding stuff on their systems is just as painful because the organization for all of them suck.


----------



## goinsleeper (May 23, 2012)

Mike Greer said:


> I went back to the play list and it was about 2 minutes before I could get more than a few seconds.
> 
> I left it running for a bit to see how fast the download was... After about 10 minutes of 'downloading' I could watch about 7 minutes of it... So not quite real time.


I have Comcast's 25 Mb/s and I've never had to wait more than 2 minutes to start something I got from DoD and never reach the buffer. You may also want to check your network setup as something seems off.

Just like others have said, I avoid channel 1000 and either Smart Search or just go straight to the On Demand channel I'm looking for. With Comcast's On Demand, I constantly had issues with freeze frame, pixelation, just stopping halfway through and audio sync being over a second off. I felt rewarded when I finally found something that didn't have an issue.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> I tried the HD all option from ch 1000 and agree with you, performance is horrible. Looks like it downloads the entire list before displaying a page and then if you select a program and go back it downloads the entire list again, not a user friendly way to do it. Guess I never noticed that since I always go to a channel and then list from there.





tonyd79 said:


> I typically search or go to the channel looking for what I want.
> 
> While fios and Comcast menus are snappier, neither (to my knowledge) has a complete list like channel 1000 on DirecTV. Finding stuff on their systems is just as painful because the organization for all of them suck.


It is faster if I go to a specific channel but still clunky and I still have to start a recording, go back to the list and wait.... Better but still not even close to the speed of watching something OnDmand with Comcast. I'm no fan of Comcast but I can see why many Comcast subs don't see the need for a DVR at all.

I guess it just isn't for me.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Greer;3173785 said:


> It is faster if I go to a specific channel but still clunky and I still have to start a recording, go back to the list and wait.... Better but still not even close to the speed of watching something OnDmand with Comcast. I'm no fan of Comcast but I can see why many Comcast subs don't see the need for a DVR at all.
> 
> I guess it just isn't for me.


Try it at next NR, I guess.

And any Comcast customer who thinks that is nuts. Not everything s available and Comcast on demand has always been jerky everywhere I've seen it.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Mike Greer said:


> It is faster if I go to a specific channel but still clunky and I still have to start a recording, go back to the list and wait.... Better but still not even close to the speed of watching something OnDmand with Comcast. I'm no fan of Comcast but I can see why many Comcast subs don't see the need for a DVR at all.
> 
> I guess it just isn't for me.


So when you select a show to view is there a 'watch now' option besides record? If there is and you select watch now what happens?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

goinsleeper said:


> I have Comcast's 25 Mb/s and I've never had to wait more than 2 minutes to start something I got from DoD and never reach the buffer. You may also want to check your network setup as something seems off.
> 
> Just like others have said, I avoid channel 1000 and either Smart Search or just go straight to the On Demand channel I'm looking for. With Comcast's On Demand, I constantly had issues with freeze frame, pixelation, just stopping halfway through and audio sync being over a second off. I felt rewarded when I finally found something that didn't have an issue.


My Comcast is double that speed. I've been through the network tests... I even used a DECA adapter to connect my laptop directly to the DECA network with the receivers. No problems with my laptop running full speed over the DECA network. Same performance as I get connected to my wired Ethernet network....

The slowdown has to be Comcast screwing with the competition or something up between Comcast - the Internet - and DirecTV's servers.

I've not seen the trouble with freezing etc that you mentioned but I've only used it here and there at a friend's house. My friend hasn't mentioned any trouble either. Maybe your trouble was with something in your setup.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> So when you select a show to view is there a 'watch now' option besides record? If there is and you select watch now what happens?


Wow - just verified that I don't have what it takes to subject myself to OnDemand! I saw your post and just went looking for anything that may say "Watch now" to try it. I couldn't find anything that gave me the option to watch now. Maybe the receiver verifies the connection is fast enough to do Watch Now and if not it doesn't give you that option? I looked through Showtime, HBO, just the general Comedy section and the Series TV sections - I couldn't find anything at all for 'Watch Now'.

I checked a few previews - those play without recording but it still takes 10-15 seconds for a low resolutions double boxed preview to start

Looking for something to watch is just painful - I'd have to have a specific show in mind before I ever tried again. Browsing isn't really an option because it takes sooo long. You spend a lot of time with just the DirecTV logo in the center of the screen waiting for something to happen.

Sorry to turn this into an OnDemand thread.... I figured new codecs could improve DirecTV's OnDemand but it looks like they need more than new codecs - it shouldn't be so hard to find something!


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Mike Greer;3173811 said:


> Wow - just verified that I don't have what it takes to subject myself to OnDemand! I saw your post and just went looking for anything that may say "Watch now" to try it. I couldn't find anything that gave me the option to watch now. Maybe the receiver verifies the connection is fast enough to do Watch Now and if not it doesn't give you that option? I looked through Showtime, HBO, just the general Comedy section and the Series TV sections - I couldn't find anything at all for 'Watch Now'.
> 
> I checked a few previews - those play without recording but it still takes 10-15 seconds for a low resolutions double boxed preview to start
> 
> ...


Again, sounds like a problem on your end..


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Try it at next NR, I guess.
> 
> And any Comcast customer who thinks that is nuts. Not everything s available and Comcast on demand has always been jerky everywhere I've seen it.


We'll see - I think it's just not for me. I record most everything I care about anyway.

I think anyone that thinks they don't need a DVR is nuts! Maybe like everything else at Comcast the experience varies wildly depending on the market you're in.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> Again, sounds like a problem on your end.


Of course it is!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Mike Greer said:


> Wow - just verified that I don't have what it takes to subject myself to OnDemand! I saw your post and just went looking for anything that may say "Watch now" to try it. I couldn't find anything that gave me the option to watch now.


Strange, what model receiver do you have and what software level is it running? I know you've mentioned Showtime on Demand a couple times, if you go to channel 1545, select Series and then Borgias do any of them show "Watch Now" as an option right above record option? My understanding was that it should be there and it will try to do the watch now but if it determines your connection is too slow it will then give you the option to record it and watch later or just cancel it.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

RAD said:


> Strange, what model receiver do you have and what software level is it running? I know you've mentioned Showtime on Demand a couple times, if you go to channel 1545, select Series and then Borgias do any of them show "Watch Now" as an option right above record option? My understanding was that it should be there and it will try to do the watch now but if it determines your connection is too slow it will then give you the option to record it and watch later or just cancel it.


I have 3 HR24-500 all running 062c software.

Just checked again and none of the Borgias have 'Watch Now'.

I think I really actually may have a curse!


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Mike Greer;3173961 said:


> I have 3 HR24-500 all running 062c software.
> 
> Just checked again and none of the Borgias have 'Watch Now'.
> 
> I think I really actually may have a curse!


You do seem to always have weird issues. A setup with 3 HR24s should be ideal. Great setup usually.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Greer;3173961 said:


> I have 3 HR24-500 all running 062c software.
> 
> Just checked again and none of the Borgias have 'Watch Now'.
> 
> I think I really actually may have a curse!


That was what I was referring to. Thought maybe you weren't up to date on software.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

last days you guys posting too much but the topic: *H.265*
:backtotop


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

P Smith said:


> last days you guys posting too much but the topic: *H.265*
> :backtotop


What?


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> What?


He means we (mostly me) have changed the topic from H.265 to OnDemand...

I headed down that path because I thought DirecTV could improve OnDemand with new bandwidth and codecs...

Obviously you don't think so. But I still do! Even if they don't move more OnDemand to satellite the downloads would be smaller using newer codecs...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Logic will get you a long way however.


Alas, logic and reason take a back seat to resources and priorities. If logic ruled the day, CIG and scanning with the AM21 would be something that worked on the HR2x series (scanning on the HR34 and higher proves it can indeed be done). It logic was the driver, DIRECTV would either kill or fix TV Apps and Media Center.

Logic can apply, but it requires a complete understanding of all the parameters and contrary to popular belief, subscribing to DIRECTV does not afford one anywhere near such omniscience.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Greer said:


> I headed down that path because I thought DirecTV could improve OnDemand with new bandwidth and codecs...


Given what's in the Clarke belt now (bandwidth) and what is installed in homes in terms of receiver technology (CODECs), this is not something that is going to _begin_ to change for probably two years. It is surely premature to get excited about it.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

harsh said:


> Given what's in the Clarke belt now (bandwidth) and what is installed in homes in terms of receiver technology (CODECs), this is not something that is going to _begin_ to change for probably two years. It is surely premature to get excited about it.


I'm far from excited about it!


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

If/when DirecTV starts to offer 4K or 8K material then I could see them looking into using H.265 since they will most likely have to offer new hardware to support it anyway. I would guess by that time they will have probably quit supporting the old SD Mpeg2 stuff and moved all the other SD and HD channels over to Mpeg4 (and replace all customers receivers with MPEG4 equipment), then they will have the new hardware that does 4K.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Beerstalker said:


> If/when DirecTV starts to offer 4K or 8K material then I could see them looking into using H.265 since they will most likely have to offer new hardware to support it anyway. I would guess by that time they will have probably quit supporting the old SD Mpeg2 stuff and moved all the other SD and HD channels over to Mpeg4 (and replace all customers receivers with MPEG4 equipment), then they will have the new hardware that does 4K.


Though somewhat unclear at times, this was apparently what Philip Goswitz (DirecTV's SVP for Space and Communications and R&D) had in mind last year when he stated the plan was move all remaining SD channels without HD duplicates to the MPEG-4 Ka band and cease with any SD MPEG-2 programming on the Ku band (at 101 at least) in about 5 years.

The freed-up Ku band (again at 101 at least) will then be used for 4k Ultra HD programming where I suppose a compression standard like H.265 would be indispensable, particular if the same legacy 24 MHz transponder bandwidth restriction is mandated for the old 12.2-12.7 GHz DBS band.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It seems like the exotic stuff (3D, 4K) would be better placed in the exotic bands (I'm thinking RDBS) so that they can outfit those who can use it (a vanishingly small number) with special LNB assemblies and not take away bandwidth from the "conventional" satellites.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> It seems like the exotic stuff (3D, 4K) would be better placed in the exotic bands (I'm thinking RDBS) so that they can outfit those who can use it (a vanishingly small number) with special LNB assemblies and not take away bandwidth from the "conventional" satellites.


IIRC, Phil Goswitz commented on that issue as well. That the RDBS band was destined to be used for HD/SD International programming.

That is as an eventual replacement for the present SD only World Direct dish and service at 95w.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Some of you may have noticed you a few of your posts missing from this thread. I have deleted them not because of the content you posted but rather for other reasons that I can not go into. 

If you have any questions please PM me.

Mike


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

I'm not sure of how many locals across the country Directv gets via MPEG-4, but I know here in Huntsville, they get the locals via OTA at their call center, and that's MPEG-2.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

taz291819 said:


> I'm not sure of how many locals across the country Directv gets via MPEG-4, but I know here in Huntsville, they get the locals via OTA at their call center, and that's MPEG-2.


I don't think they GET any locals mpeg4.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

taz291819 said:


> I'm not sure of how many locals across the country Directv gets via MPEG-4, but I know here in Huntsville, they get the locals via OTA at their call center, and that's MPEG-2.


Could you give at least one example where [free] OTA is in MPEG-4/H.264 video compression ?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> If you could give at least one example when OTA is in MPEG-2/H.263 video compression....


P. Smith;

Correcting for grammar and the ITU-T's "H" series number for the MPEG 2 standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.262/MPEG-2_Part_2.

Do you mean above;

"Can you give at least one example where OTA DTV is not in *MPEG-2/H.262* video compression....?"


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Could you give at least one example where [free] OTA is in MPEG-4/H.264 video compression ?


I can't name any, I'm just replying to comments made on the 2nd page of this thread. Network may be sending their stuff to affiliates via MPEG-4, but I don't know of a single one (affiliate) that sends Directv a MPEG-4 feed.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

taz291819 said:


> I can't name any, I'm just replying to comments made on the 2nd page of this thread. Network may be sending their stuff to affiliates via MPEG-4, but I don't know of a single one (affiliate) that sends Directv a MPEG-4 feed.


We don't have participants here like station engineers at AVS forum; perhaps real knowledgeable ppl could enlighten us ? Who knows perhaps inside station's infrastructure they using H.264 equipment, say for store old content/archiving ...


----------

