# HD-LITE - It's Not Just About Resolution



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

HBO-HD uses some very old Motorola Encoders that peak at 14.25Mbps for their stream for the East Coast HD feed. These encoders create GOPs of 14 frames each - with 1 I-frame and alternating B and P frames.

E* and D* in their rush to HD-LITE are further destroying PQ, not just by reduction of resolution from 1920x1080 to 1440/1280x1080, they are cramming more frames into each GOP with far less I-frames and B frames back to back, instead of alternating B and P frames.

The newer E* Encoders are capable of variable GOP - ranging from roughly 8 frames per GOP, but normally averaging up to 45 or more frames per GOP - with only 1 I-Frame.

So, one can argue all they want about your monitor cannot see the reduction in quality from 1920 to 1440 or 1280, but that is only one part of the story.

The bigger part which no one has addressed, is that the I Frames which are the ONLY full images are being replaced by lower quality B and P frames - and worse yet, they are using 2 B frames to every P frame, which makes the P frame Quality even worse.

For example, here is your typical HBO opening off the C Band Distribution satellite:



And here is HBO on E* 9456 in the last 5 days since they moved 9456 to HD-LITE:



The GOP and frames within speak for themselves.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

That's amazing. The movie is PG-13 on C-Band and R on E*! 

Thanks for the details.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> That's amazing. The movie is PG-13 on C-Band and R on E*!
> 
> Thanks for the details.


All one has to do is look at the top to see it was 2 different movies - its the standard HBO opening - that doesnt vary except for the rating .

If you look further, you will not the top is the B frame and the bottom is the I frame, before someone starts saying the E* 9456 has a higher byte size/quality picture.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Read the  ... BTW: What is the bitrate on the E* feed shown?

BTW2: E*'s latest encoders are MPEG4 ... HBOHD remains MPEG2 for the older MPEG2 receivers.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Read the  ... BTW: What is the bitrate on the E* feed shown?


As I noted in the other thread, the encoders are set up so sloppy that they actually have slightly HIGHER bitrate than the Distribution feed - thus they are screwing up the PQ and actually using more bandwidth.

A bitrate from E* than the distribution feed doesn't mean its BETTER than the distribution feed.

You can record a cassette onto a CD, but it still sounds like a cassette.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Distribution on C Band:
Eve's Bayou 1080iT AC3 HBOC_01.ts
Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 8.33 GB, Play Time: 01h:48m:37s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.14 fps Telecine), 14.25 Mbps (10.27 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 51.95 KB/Frame, 0.21 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 2/0 Channels (L, R), 48.0 kHz, 384 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -27.0 dB
0 of 157330 video frames found with errors.
0 of 203675 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

E* on 9456:
Eve's Bayou 1080iT AC3 HBO 110 Backup_01.ts
Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 8.38 GB, Play Time: 01h:48m:38s
1440 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.09 fps Telecine), 65.00 Mbps (10.34 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 52.40 KB/Frame, 0.28 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 2/0 Channels (L, R), 48.0 kHz, 384 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -27.0 dB
0 of 157041 video frames found with errors.
0 of 203705 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

End of Log

10.27 Mbps on Distribution and 10.33 Mbps on 9456


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> BTW2: E*'s latest encoders are MPEG4 ... HBOHD remains MPEG2 for the older MPEG2 receivers.


I am well aware that 9456 is MPEG2.

Many of the current generation MPEG4 encoders can also encode in MPEG2.

However, this is a new encoder that can do variable GOPs lengths.

E*'s encoder on 9456 never did variable GOP length in the past (nor did any of their MPEG2 HD encoders).


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic: As always, thanks for the technical info. Would you be able to do a similar comparison and include a clip from 148?


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

I dont know about you, but all of this technical discussion is meaningless to me when I am watching TV. If you want to talk about picture quality, put some screen captures of vid captures and point out problems between the two. 

Like you said they are using different enconders and will have different results with different bitrates... but if the picture looks the same, it is meaningless.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"but all of this technical discussion is meaningless" - then why you posting that ?


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

grooves12 said:


> ... but if the picture looks the same, it is meaningless.


that's the entire point of posting the technical data, the picture doesn't look the same.


----------



## kckucera (Aug 1, 2005)

As I come from the glass half full school, I would expect this to be temporary until Dish moves all the premiums to MPEG4. Having said that, my guess is PQ will always delicne to the lowest acceptable level (before losing subs and increased churn) so what we need to do is set up a thread with a list of channels that now have lower quality then get a ground swell of members to write and complain and threaten to go elsewhere.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

For you as a recently joined person it is temporary, but for ppl who watch HD from beginning it's going steady downhill last few years.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

rtk said:


> HDTVFanAtic: As always, thanks for the technical info. Would you be able to do a similar comparison and include a clip from 148?


148 is identical to C Band Distribution at the moment - I would hope they would just forget to change things there.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

kckucera said:


> As I come from the glass half full school, I would expect this to be temporary until Dish moves all the premiums to MPEG4. Having said that, my guess is PQ will always delicne to the lowest acceptable level (before losing subs and increased churn) so what we need to do is set up a thread with a list of channels that now have lower quality then get a ground swell of members to write and complain and threaten to go elsewhere.


Been tried.....they don't care.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

grooves12 said:


> I dont know about you, but all of this technical discussion is meaningless to me when I am watching TV. If you want to talk about picture quality, put some screen captures of vid captures and point out problems between the two.
> 
> Like you said they are using different enconders and will have different results with different bitrates... but if the picture looks the same, it is meaningless.






rtk said:


> that's the entire point of posting the technical data, the picture doesn't look the same.


Yes, only I frames are full frames

If you had 100% I Frames it would look wonderful.

However, that would cause you to need over 30Mbps - which isn't available.

B and P Frames are rendered from I frames

And repeated B frames cause the P frames to be even worse.

So bottom line - you can say the pictures look identical - but the scientific evidence posted above doesn't support that statement - and blows that statement out of the water.

It's physically impossible in this universe.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Yes, only I frames are full frames
> 
> If you had 100% I Frames it would look wonderful.
> 
> ...


They are not the same, but quality is subjective... and I have seen no image captures or movie captures outlining any problems.

I can show you image sizes comparing .jpg and .tif files all day long... and despite the .jpg being dramatically smaller because of compression, to most people's eyes they will not be able to tell the difference unless they are VERY closely scrutinizing it.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

grooves12 said:


> They are not the same, but quality is subjective... and I have seen no image captures or movie captures outlining any problems.


By your own words if you haven't done any comparison, could you kindly explain how you can draw any conclusion?  You're correct about quality being subjective but why would someone EVER argue against improved picture quality?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> So bottom line - you can say the pictures look identical - but the scientific evidence posted above doesn't support that statement - and blows that statement out of the water.


I'm not arguing with you conceptually... but how does the evidence you posted prove anything? By your own commentary, one is an I frame and the other is a B frame... there is no way to correctly compare those. Also, the two frames are from two different time periods and two different movies. Yes, James' comment about R vs PG was a joke... but it has a ring of truth to it. The data contained in the frames is not identical and would compress differently. You'd have to compare identical frames from identical recordings of the same movie in order to make any kind of scientific comparison of frames.

That said... there are lots of things (including MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression in and of itself) that affect picture quality, and most folks don't grasp that or even care for the level of detail it would take to explain the differences. But I do see alot of crowing in the forums and alot of "me too" when anyone posts anything good or bad people tend to jump on the bandwagon one way or the other and have their perceptions of reality colored by what one or another person posts about his own experience.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

rtk said:


> By your own words if you haven't done any comparison, could you kindly explain how you can draw any conclusion?  You're correct about quality being subjective but why would someone EVER argue against improved picture quality?


I'm not arguing against it... I just think a lot of this HD-lite bandwagon is largely overblown and they are arguing technical BS that is meaningless in the real world. I always hear the compare OTA to Mpeg4 and you know what when I do, they look nearly identical. Granted there were issues very early on, but we pointed them out to E* engineers, they worked with us and changed encoder settings, and ever since i have been very happy with the quality.

This whole thread is based off a technical aspect and if the info wasn't available there would be no discussion. The OP retroactively applied the information to some arbitrary date and correlated it to "noticing" a difference in picture quality, but if it was REALLY a problem, why wasn't there a post on THAT date by ANYONE (OP included) that said, I'm noticing lower picture quality on HBO. You know why? Because nobody here noticed the picture quality, they noticed some arbitrary numbers in a data logger and are complaining about something that is meaningless.

But, still I have yet to have ONE poster say what kind of picture quality issues they are experiencing, and I have seen none myself, and unless there IS some and you can point them out to others and a E* engineer, what are they supposed to do about it?? Are we supposed to call them up and say, "You know I'm not happy with my E* service because the bit stream is not an exact match of the same channel on C band"?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I understand the concept of what he is trying to demonstrate.

That on the C band feed a FULL "I" frame is sent more often and the "B P B P ..." update frame pattern are what he believes to be a better pattern. Meanwhile on the E* feed "I" frames are fewer apart and he does not like the update pattern of "B B P ...".

BBP is acceptable - although I agree that the more I frames the better (especially for those just tuning to the channel).

'Also called a keyframe, an I-frame is a single frame of digital content that the compressor examines independent of the frames that precede and follow it and stores all of the data needed to display that frame.'

'P-frames follow I-frames and contain only the data that have changed from the preceding I-frame (such as color or content changes).'

'B-frames contain only the data that have changed from the preceding frame or are different from the data in the very next frame.'​
If I'm understanding this correctly, if I give you an I frame you will have one complete frame of the video. If I give you a P frame you will have an incomplete frame showing just what is different from the last I frame and if I give you a B frame you will have an incomplete frame showing just what is different from the last frame or will change in the next frame (not related specifically to last or next I frame).

I AAAAAAAAAA = AAAAAAAAAA 10
B _B_A_B_A_A = ABAAABAAAA 15
P _B_C_B_C_C = ABACABACAC 20
B __D_D_A_A_ = ABDCDBACAC 24
P _BDCDBECEC = ABDCDBECEC 33
B _FFF__ECE_ = AFFFDBECEC 36
P _FFFDBGGGC = AFFFDBGGGC 45

Under those rules B frames send redundant PAST information (the first and third B frames above gives details about three letters that will change while the second gives details about two letters that will change) but per the definition the P frame sends ALL changes since the last I frame.

I AAAAAAAAAA = AAAAAAAAAA 10
B _B_A_B_A_A = ABAAABAAAA 15
B __ACA__C_C = ABACABACAC 20
P _BDCDB_C_C = ABDCDBACAC 27
B _BDC__E_E_ = ABDCDBECEC 32
B _FFF__ECE_ = AFFFDBECEC 38
P _FFFDBGGGC = AFFFDBGGGC 47

In this tiny case, two more changes are sent using a BBP pattern than a BPBP pattern for these seven frames. The redundancy of sending something the decoder should already know (the information about to change in the next frame that is included in B frames) vs the redundancy of sending information the decoder should already know (the information that has been changed in a previous frame that is resent in P frames). Both are redundant. Which is more redundant depends on where the motion is in the scene.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

grooves12 said:


> But, still I have yet to have ONE poster say what kind of picture quality issues they are experiencing, and I have seen none myself, and unless there IS some and you can point them out to others and a E* engineer, what are they supposed to do about it?? Are we supposed to call them up and say, "You know I'm not happy with my E* service because the bit stream is not an exact match of the same channel on C band"?


I can't speak to HBO since I do not subscribe... but I started a thread a week or so ago after I was up late one night and thought the picture quality suddenly improved across the board. I was watching a channel that had some glitches, then suddenly became stable and clearer than before.

I have no quantitative info to support one way or the other... but I have thought all the HD I get from Dish for the past week or so has seemed better lately. They may or may not have done anything, but it seems improved to me.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> I understand the concept of what he is trying to demonstrate.
> 
> BBP is acceptable - although I agree that the more I frames the better (especially for those just tuning to the channel).


Not so fast.....it might seem so on the surface, but not in actual use.

Generally speaking, if an I frame uses 150kb, a P frame will use about 50kb and a B frame will use about 25kb.

B still discard part of your bitrate in the overall scheme of things as other frames can be based on them.

The more B frames that are used, obviously each P frame is from the other, which ends up making their quality worse.

And since the B frames are based on the surrounding P frames, they end up looking worse, too.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

grooves12 said:


> I'm not arguing against it... I just think a lot of this HD-lite bandwagon is largely overblown and they are arguing technical BS that is meaningless in the real world. I always hear the compare OTA to Mpeg4 and you know what when I do, they look nearly identical. Granted there were issues very early on, but we pointed them out to E* engineers, they worked with us and changed encoder settings, and ever since i have been very happy with the quality.


There are thousands of posts among several sites that continue to point out the issues of OTA vs. MPEG4.



grooves12 said:


> This whole thread is based off a technical aspect and if the info wasn't available there would be no discussion. The OP retroactively applied the information to some arbitrary date and correlated it to "noticing" a difference in picture quality, but if it was REALLY a problem, why wasn't there a post on THAT date by ANYONE (OP included) that said, I'm noticing lower picture quality on HBO. You know why? Because nobody here noticed the picture quality, they noticed some arbitrary numbers in a data logger and are complaining about something that is
> meaningless.


Wrong - you might want to do a simple search of topics before you post.



grooves12 said:


> But, still I have yet to have ONE poster say what kind of picture quality issues they are experiencing, and I have seen none myself, and unless there IS some and you can point them out to others and a E* engineer, what are they supposed to do about it?? Are we supposed to call them up and say, "You know I'm not happy with my E* service because the bit stream is not an exact match of the same channel on C band"?


I don't disagree with E* and D* that many of the people (obviously including yourself that 1) don't have a set that can display 1920x1080i or 2) think that anything looks great because it has higher resolution than their SD-LITE.

And to prove it, here is a post in the last few hours that proves the point once again:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=993912&postcount=17


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Not so fast.....it might seem so on the surface, but not in actual use.
> 
> Generally speaking, if an I frame uses 150kb, a P frame will use about 50kb and a B frame will use about 25kb.
> 
> ...


Make up your mind. Do you want more pixels sent per frame or less?

If you want more pixels sent then accept that more I frames leads to a better picture.
If you want less pixels sent then accept B frames.

The issue with not having enough I frames is that the picture can become corrupted ... an error isn't corrected until that pixel is refreshed with a B frame or P frame. The longer one goes without an I frame the bigger the P frames get ... which does not help the overall size of the content stream.

I frames are good ... B frames are efficient. A happy medium is mixing the two and still drawing an uncorrupted image.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Make up your mind. Do you want more pixels sent per frame or less?


You missed the point.

As I stated, you can use all I-Frames but you will need above 30Mbps of bandwidth. I'll take that if that is what you are offering of more pixels per frame.

However, you only note half of it - the question is what can a B frame or a P frame do.

As shown above, B frames are only 1/3 the size of an I-Frame, but they make the P frames look even worse when multiple B frames are put back to back - and the P frames then make the B frames look worse - as the B frames are rendered from the frames surrounding them.

When you take 1 I frame every 45 frames, there is no way it will look good unless there is literally no motion.

Fast motion and you are dead.

There is a reason most sources do NOT use 2 B frames back to back - and that is what I have stated.

2 B frames to every P frame has severe consequences.

Unless you have every frame an I frame, everything is a trade off - and 1 B to 1 P is generally the best - not 2 B to 1 P.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Sorry, you can't have what you want (IIIII...). I want to have more than one HD channel per transponder. Nor can you have IBPBPBPBPBPBPBP ... I want to have more than three HD channels per transponder.

You have stated your _preference_ for not using B frames more often (even though they are by your own numbers 50% smaller than a P and save space on the feed).


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Sorry, you can't have what you want (IIIII...). I want to have more than one HD channel per transponder. Nor can you have IBPBPBPBPBPBPBP ... I want to have more than three HD channels per transponder.
> 
> You have stated your _preference_ for not using B frames more often (even though they are by your own numbers 50% smaller than a P and save space on the feed).


Well, we had IBPBPBPBPBPBPBP up until 10 days ago.

If you want 3 HD channels per transponder, you have made the decision you will accept lower quality.

What you have failed to account to is why E* is so ineffectively coding HDLITE to TAKE UP MORE BITRATE THAN THE ORIGINAL.

And as for my preference of no 2 B Frames back to back, again, it is what the experts use to distribute programming for redistribution - so though it might be my preference, the experts all agree as well - so you are clearly in the minority.

Again, your preference is for quantity over quality and you should be happy - no matter how bad it looks.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

grooves12 said:


> But, still I have yet to have ONE poster say what kind of picture quality issues they are experiencing, and I have seen none myself, and unless there IS some and you can point them out to others and a E* engineer, what are they supposed to do about it?? Are we supposed to call them up and say, "You know I'm not happy with my E* service because the bit stream is not an exact match of the same channel on C band"?


Macroblocking is one. I would say excessive but that would just mean you would say the level is acceptable  
THE ISLAND shown on HBO-HD last week was unwatchable.

Honestly, its pointless to have a discussion with you on the topic of HD picture quality. Transmission data was provided by the original poster in support of statements made on mediocre HD picture quality. No one is going to spoon feed you screen captures or video clips, which you would likely still say you see no difference. I can accept that fact that you do not see a difference in HD picture quality, so why is it that you will not accept the fact that some of us can see a difference?

Here's a couple of questions for you. Do you see any difference in picture quality between HBO-HD and Starz-HD? Would you say that the same movie shown on both would be the same or different?

One way or another things are going to be changing this year as everything moves to mpeg4 including HBO's distribution. Hopefully this will result in improvements in HD picture quality.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Well, we had IBPBPBPBPBPBPBP up until 10 days ago.


Really? In the other thread you didn't know when the change was made and were given the date of June 21st. Now you are claiming that it was IBP... on the 25th?


> If you want 3 HD channels per transponder, you have made the decision you will accept lower quality.


Not me! The industry! They are the ones, driven by the customers, who need to provide more HD content.


> What you have failed to account to is why E* is so ineffectively coding HDLITE to TAKE UP MORE BITRATE THAN THE ORIGINAL.


Not much more on the two samples you provided ... perhaps a peak bitrate should be looked at? Is the C-Band feed drifting up to 13Mbps during action scenes and below 10Mbps during static scenes? An average for the length of the movie is great if it is an on demand feature being downloaded for later play ... E* needs to keep four feeds running at the same time within each channel's own space. If they passed through the C-Band feed what would happen when all four channels wanted 13Mbps at the same time?


> And as for my preference of no 2 B Frames back to back, again, it is what the experts use to distribute programming for redistribution - so though it might be my preference, the experts all agree as well - so you are clearly in the minority.


Unnamed experts ... when HBO changes their feeds later this year do you want to bet if they stay IBPBPBPB ... ?


> Again, your preference is for quantity over quality and you should be happy - no matter how bad it looks.


Again, not MY preference but the industry's driven by their customers hunger for multiple channels.

Enjoy C-Band while it lasts!


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Really? In the other thread you didn't know when the change was made and were given the date of June 21st. Now you are claiming that it was IBP... on the 25th?


Actually if you bother to read the response in the other thread, you will see that another posters verified when the change to the new encoders on 9456/9460 were made. At that point the started the non-standard sequence and variable GOP - something that the old encoders were not capable of.



James Long said:


> I want to have more than one HD channel per transponder. Nor can you have IBPBPBPBPBPBPBP ... I want to have more than three HD channels per transponder.





James Long said:


> Not me! The industry! They are the ones, driven by the customers, who need to provide more HD content.


Really? That's the quickest flip-flop I've seen from you!



James Long said:


> Unnamed experts ... when HBO changes their feeds later this year do you want to bet if they stay IBPBPBPB ... ?.


Sure, I'll take that bet. Considering that most HBO Masters are 9.5Mbps to 10.5Mbps and they will supply 8Mbps MPEG4, It will be very easy to keep IBPBPBP.....



James Long said:


> Again, not MY preference but the industry's driven by their customers hunger for multiple channels.





James Long said:


> I want to have more than one HD channel per transponder. Nor can you have IBPBPBPBPBPBPBP ... I want to have more than three HD channels per transponder.


Have you thought about a career in Politics


----------



## teachsac (Jun 10, 2006)

HDTVFanatic,

Thanks for your updates. I too noticed the difference but more so on Showtime. Do you have the readings for HDNET/HDNETMovies or know where I can find them? 

Thanks,

S~


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Have you thought about a career in Politics


You must be a lawyer. I'm about done with your lies and insults.

(Saying something was said in the other thread when it wasn't doesn't make it true.)


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I get better resolution on the monster channel and the food channel than on any other channels. Is this typical?

If I got HD-locals OTA without any compresion would they look better than food network and the monster channel currently do?

Is it worth it to get HD locals OTA?

Does HDMI help or hurt rsolution on HD or SD channels?


----------



## kckucera (Aug 1, 2005)

Artwood,
HDMI does seem better than component on my Panisonic projector. 
HD on OTA seems a little sharper than HD locals from Dish but it again depends on the channels since I dont get HD local PBS OTA is of value to me. ABC is 720p native so if you have upscaled your HD locals for Dish it will look softwer than in native mode.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't these decisions being made by the encoder. And there are things other than just how much of each frame is used when it comes to PQ.

Isn't it just a question of how good the realtime (I presume) MPEG4 encoders E* is using are ?

Here is a thread on AVS that compares MPEG2 broadcast, MPEG4 (AVC) broadcast in EU) and HD DVD / BD.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=827529

You will see that MPEG4 used in EU is better than the MPEG2 used here.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> You must be a lawyer. I'm about done with your lies and insults.
> 
> (Saying something was said in the other thread when it wasn't doesn't make it true.)


You are absolutely correct - as i said, it was in the other thread - you saying it isn't there is doesn't make you right when its in the other thread (Unless you want to use your mod powers to delete it and thus make yourself correct).

Must be like your no recent posts of issues with 110W in Alaska comment which was also shown to be false.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

nataraj said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't these decisions being made by the encoder. And there are things other than just how much of each frame is used when it comes to PQ.
> 
> Isn't it just a question of how good the realtime (I presume) MPEG4 encoders E* is using are ?
> 
> ...


EU MPEG4 DBS uses bandwidth up to 20Mbps - similar to the BD/HD-DVDs.

USA MPEG4 via DBS will average 6Mbps-8Mbps.

As i stated earlier, the sweet spot for MPEG4 is between 15Mbps - 20Mbps.

Depending on the encoder (and what generation it is) some decisions can be made automatically - others can be set manually.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> you saying it isn't there is doesn't make you right when its in the other thread


Link to it. Where did "another posters verified when the change to the new encoders on 9456/9460 were made" in that thread? Something in another thread?



HDTVFanAtic said:


> Must be like your no recent posts of issues with 110W in Alaska comment which was also shown to be false.


This kind of attack is just wrong. I never claimed that there were no issues with 110° ... I can't read every thread at this forum so missing a recent post that basically repeats what we have known for years shouldn't be something that you throw insults for.

You will find a post where I demonstrate how E11 will improve coverage from the 110° slot. You will find posts where I state that E8 meets the FCC standards for coverage in AK/HI. You'll also find a post from JohnH that supports that statement.

It seems that you are just here to pick a fight. Not a good thing.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> EU MPEG4 DBS uses bandwidth up to 20Mbps - similar to the BD/HD-DVDs.


How come they have so much bandwidth ?



> As i stated earlier, the sweet spot for MPEG4 is between 15Mbps - 20Mbps.


Well, thats the kind of bitrate they are using on HiDef DVD. Just like the current SD broadcast is not as good as DVD, I expect HD broadcast to be not as good as HD/BD.

Though, I want them to use that kind of BW atleast for sports - which otherwise tears & pixellates so badly.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Link to it. Where did "another posters verified when the change to the new encoders on 9456/9460 were made" in that thread? Something in another thread?


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=989056&postcount=2



richiephx said:


> within the last week I think....showtime too I think





James Long said:


> This kind of attack is just wrong. I never claimed that there were no issues with 110° ... I can't read every thread at this forum so missing a recent post that basically repeats what we have known for years shouldn't be something that you throw insults for.


Oh, so only 3 transponders working on 110 is a repeat of an on-going problem :lol:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=91253



steeliebob said:


> The spotbeam transponders are coming in great ... 110-125 signal strength.
> 
> All other transponders read zeros across the board. I imagine this is because the dish is really too small for the area???





steeliebob said:


> Just a correction ... not all spots are working, TP's 4, 12, and 26 are very high. Looks like I should be able to get 27 and 31 and not doing so. No odd TP's at all ... equipment issue?? LNBF (Invacomm quad) is new, have tried new cable run and switch (SW 21) as well. Could clipping a tree cause this problem??





James Long said:


> I can't read every thread at this forum ....


Again, I have you beat. I don't care to read every thread at this forum.....so I read a few that catch my attention - so I am very sure of what I have read and I don't make the mistake you did of making broad reaching statements such as there have not been any new reports of trouble with 110W in Alaska.



James Long said:


> You will find a post where I demonstrate how E11 will improve coverage from the 110° slot. You will find posts where I state that E8 meets the FCC standards for coverage in AK/HI. You'll also find a post from JohnH that supports that statement.


That has nothing to do with the fact stated above this post.



James Long said:


> It seems that you are just here to pick a fight. Not a good thing.


Go look in the mirror - literally every post I have made you have argued with - even with scientific fact behind it. Multiple people have PM'd me to thank me for posting this info and asked me to continue.

It appears you are the one that Charlie is pulling the strings on and only wants to throw out FUD to obscure the truth.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

nataraj said:


> How come they have so much bandwidth ?


Because people like James Long, as demonstrated by his earlier posts above, want 6 HD Channels per transponder at lower bandwidth instead of less content at higher bandwidth.

Europe has fewer HD Channels at higher bandwidth.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Because people like James Long, as demonstrated by his earlier posts above, want 6 HD Channels per transponder at lower bandwidth instead of less content at higher bandwidth.


Why are you claiming *I* want 6 HD channels per channel? That isn't my personal preference at all!


HDTVFanAtic said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=989056&postcount=2


There is a difference between confirmation and speculation.


> Oh, so only 3 transponders working on 110 is a repeat of an on-going problem :lol:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=91253


How many transponders were working at that member's location before E10's spotbeams? Receiving E8 in Alaska has been a challenge ... it remains a challenge ... it will be less of a challenge in December when 110° ConUS will be served by E11.


> Again, I have you beat. I don't care to read every thread at this forum.....so I read a few that catch my attention - so I am very sure of what I have read and I don't make the mistake you did of making broad reaching statements such as there have not been any new reports of trouble with 110W in Alaska.


I don't make the mistake of calling people liars because they missed a thread.


> That has nothing to do with the fact stated above this post.


Sure it does. If you don't understand blame your parents and teachers.


> Go look in the mirror - literally every post I have made you have argued with - even with scientific fact behind it. Multiple people have PM'd me to thank me for posting this info and asked me to continue.


My favorite attack! "I have many unnamed supporters." Claiming to be the majority. Kinda familiar too.


> It appears you are the one that Charlie is pulling the strings on and only wants to throw out FUD to obscure the truth.


My second favorite attack. "If you don't support my Dish bashing you work for Charlie."

Sorry, but the "FUD" is coming from your keyboard - as well as continued personal attacks. Your personal opinion that one scheme is better than others backed up by flawed or missing information. When pressed you change the subject.

So far you have "proven" that I apparently didn't see a post about reception problems in Alaska. That isn't the topic of this thread. This thread is about HD Lite ... please post about HD Lite or don't post at all. In addition, this forum is about DBS ... in particular E* HD ... please stay on topic.

Thank you.


----------

