1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DirecTV National HD Listing/Maps Discussion Thread (Technical - Not Anticipation)

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Sixto, May 29, 2012.

  1. Jul 2, 2012 #221 of 653
    georule

    georule Hall Of Fame

    1,603
    5
    Mar 31, 2010
    So. . . the next question is, do we now have a scribble on the napkin standard for "how many per quarter"?

    Except that coming July 2nd, they pretty much had to have spent the money last quarter, wouldn't you think? Well, maybe not, with 30 day invoicing. Business buying isn't necessarily consumer cash-and-carry.
     
  2. Jul 2, 2012 #222 of 653
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,612
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    well maybe they are doing a slow roll out to test out the new system.

    Also there likely alot of up coming sports channels and rsn's that are waiting for the channel to go live (that need slots saved for them)
     
  3. Jul 3, 2012 #223 of 653
    ejjames

    ejjames Icon

    896
    0
    Oct 2, 2006
    Even with the addition of new encoders, does the move from 5 channels per transponder to 6 make anyone else nervous?
     
  4. Jul 3, 2012 #224 of 653
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,734
    982
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Not me. DirecTV is doing fine for capacity and at 6 per transponder they will have more than enough for every channel they want to carry plus channels they don't carry.

    If DirecTV was in a bandwidth pinch were nothing new could be carried without going beyond 6 per transponder it might be something to be concerned about. But they are not at that point and are not expected to need more than 6 per transponder. The slippery slope of 5 becomes 6 becomes 7 becomes 8 is not something that is likely to happen at DirecTV.
     
  5. Jul 3, 2012 #225 of 653
    charlie460

    charlie460 Godfather

    401
    5
    Sep 12, 2009
    yes
     
  6. Jul 3, 2012 #226 of 653
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Nope. The obviously didn't just go out and start compressing more to get to six, they waited Neil they found encoders that could keep the quality at the same level and accomplish all of this at the same time. I believe it's all good.

    And as James said, by the time they run out of room now, they will have d14 in the air. Heck, they might have d14 and d15 in the air by then....
     
  7. Jul 3, 2012 #227 of 653
    Sixto

    Sixto Well-Known Member

    12,224
    94
    Nov 18, 2005
    It appears that new technology became available, and they're taking advantage of the new technology.

    I've not seen anyone notice the difference yet.
     
  8. Jul 3, 2012 #228 of 653
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,612
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    they can also in a bandwidth pinch trun off SD duplicates and move SD only stuff to MPEG 4.
     
  9. Jul 3, 2012 #229 of 653
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,317
    500
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    Have you actually seen a difference in the channels they are currently doing this with?
     
  10. Jul 3, 2012 #230 of 653
    georule

    georule Hall Of Fame

    1,603
    5
    Mar 31, 2010
    Not yet. If you haven't reviewed the encoder presentation linked upstream, go take a look at that (the mpeg 4 section is towards the end).

    They've already got some high-profile channels on these 6-per TPs, and no one has raised any PQ flags yet.

    Given the nature of this very competitive business, if they were giving up quality to do this, competitors would be feeding their online surrogates with talking points and screenies showing it, or at least pointing out where to look.
     
  11. Jul 3, 2012 #231 of 653
    charlie460

    charlie460 Godfather

    401
    5
    Sep 12, 2009
    No, but I worry about them getting too happy with this and trying to squeeze even more channels on one TP. Or cutting resolution to 1440 like Dish.
     
  12. Jul 3, 2012 #232 of 653
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Why would they even consider that when they have so many transponders still with only five channels.

    I doubt this would happen, as the quality of their encoders and picture quality seems to be a particular point of pride by DIRECTV and some of the powers that be there.
     
  13. Jul 3, 2012 #233 of 653
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I see it as the opposite. They waited until they could maintain the quality to add a sixth channel. Plus they now have plenty of space. Especially since 3D has not quite caught on.

    Also hopeful because they have started to retire old (very old) boxes. Future looks pretty good right now.

    It all comes down to money and other contract items.
     
  14. Jul 3, 2012 #234 of 653
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,970
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Technically, the retired boxes using additional bandwidth (for MPG) barely allow to reuse it for one SD channel per tpn on Ku sats (101/110/119).
     
  15. Jul 3, 2012 #235 of 653
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I know but they had to start somewhere.
     
  16. Jul 3, 2012 #236 of 653
    cypherx

    cypherx Hall Of Fame

    3,462
    66
    Aug 27, 2010
    PA - Berks...
    There's nothing to worry about in terms of quality. They could of done this long ago but the fact that they waited until technology got better proves they aren't acting "blindly".
     
  17. Jul 4, 2012 #237 of 653
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,612
    33
    Jul 21, 2008
    well that can fit the up coming RSN's and other sports channels.
     
  18. Jul 4, 2012 #238 of 653
    Xizer

    Xizer Cool Member

    16
    0
    Apr 2, 2012
    I don't buy it.

    DirecTV is in dangerous territory now - AT&T U-verse territory.

    For those unfortunate enough to have seen U-verse TV's "HD" channels in action - you will be scarred for life by how bad they look.

    AT&T runs their H.264 encoders at 6 Mbps. This is the same bitrate that DirecTV is doing now with their new 6-per-TP scheme. DirecTV's picture quality was never anything to write home about at 8 Mbps. It was decent compared to many providers but utter crap compared to Blu-rays and free-to-air satellite feeds/wildfeeds/backhauls.

    Why is DirecTV trying to match that previous subpar quality at a lower bitrate instead of improving upon it and trying to get closer to Blu-ray/FTA satellite quality video? :confused: If these magic new encoders are so much better they should be using them at 8 Mbps...

    Here's a screenshot comparison of AT&T U-verse versus YouTube:

    http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/63008
    http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/63009
    http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/63010

    I don't know - maybe I'm unreasonable for wanting an expensive paid monthly service like DirecTV to be able to match the quality of what's being put out for free over the air via FTA satellite or ATSC antenna...
     
  19. Jul 4, 2012 #239 of 653
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,526
    1,086
    Nov 13, 2006
    Did you just offer up posts on you tube for pic quality? :lol:

    And you think AT&T gets all the way up to 6?

    And there is no one out there now that comes close to blu ray, and I doubt there will be for at least ten years or more, so I don't even bother with that kind of comparison. And fta isn't a competitor in that either. Dish, DIRECTV, and cable companies and over the air are all fair comparisons.

    And evidently you haven't sen any of the over the air Hi Definition channels in my market. DIRECTV has as good a pq as any of them do for the same channels, and some cable channels are even better n dtv. All my freaking channels seem to think if they aren't showing an additional three to ten (yes ten on a couple non network stations) sub channels they aren't doing a good enough job.

    You don't have to buy it, but they haven't lost any pq on the channels they have already gone to six per transponders with. At least not that anyone here has ever been able to see.
     
  20. Jul 4, 2012 #240 of 653
    Xizer

    Xizer Cool Member

    16
    0
    Apr 2, 2012
    Measured at the U-verse gateway, AT&T's HD streams for video are approx. 5.7 Mbps. This makes sense as on the 32/5 U-verse profile (this is the one assigned to you on AT&T's fastest Internet speed offering, 24/3 Mbps) - one's Internet connection speed drops to 20 Mbps when viewing two HD channels at once - 14 Mbps when viewing 3 HD channels - and just 8 Mbps when viewing four HD channels. So yes, Internet speed loss on U-verse when viewing 2 or more HD channels definitely correlates with the 6 Mbps of bandwidth per HD channel as well.

    The point of the comparison was to illustrate how bad AT&T U-verse looks at that bitrate - that a recording from Verizon FiOS of the same channel uploaded to YouTube still looks better than AT&T even after YouTube molests it. It's that bad.

    As for whether or not DirecTV looks any worse with the 25% bitrate drop, I'd take opinions without some screenshots to back it up with a grain of salt. In the other thread about DirecTV HD channels the majority opinion is that the new channel they're adding, TCM HD - "looks great." This is despite the fact that it is the only high definition channel that has never aired a single minute of native high definition content. Most people are clueless when it comes to picture quality.

    Really the only way to know scientifically is for a thorough identical frame screenshot comparison to be done like the AT&T vs. YouTube comparison above: screenshots need to be taken of a program before it gets dropped down to 6 Mbps and then a repeat of the program after the channel is dropped down.
     

Share This Page