Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Sixto, May 29, 2012.
Dish's 8PSK 21500 2/3 modulation gives them around 40-41 megabits of transport.
It was my impression that the MPEG4 decoding is all done in hardware. That the older MPEG2 was also decoded in hardware.
These DVRS used by either service do not have the CPU power to decode in software. I have a I3 based computer that can barely handle 1080i.
The Processors in the DVRs only have to handle things like the timers, Remote keypress, and the guide (DVR content) and then hand it off to the proper hardware to do the actual functions.
AMC HD does not look bad to me. Could it look better? Sure... but that goes for all the channels...
The anemic bandwidth given to the networks might mean that they could be easier to fit in, but they still take up space.
Tested for a week and know gone:http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3029587#post3029587
AMC looks softer than most other HD broadcasts. Can all be better? Sure.
Right now on NBC, which usually has a very good HD broadcast, the picture is extremely soft- as they're showing a feed from the UK- some Jubilee stuff- obviously very compressed somewhere along the line, though it is their own feed.
AMC's airings of "Mad Men" and "The Walking Dead" look very soft compared to the Blu-ray versions... which is to be expected of any program, but especially so when one is dealing with a show that features a good amount of "grain" in the film stock, or noise in the digital capture. The Blu-ray's higher compression is able to render it more accurately...
However, "Hell On Wheels" which appeared to be shot digitally and had pretty much zero noise, looked amazing on DirecTV.
It all depends on the content.
DTV is USING 8PSK for many Ka transponders.
I honestly thought it was just QPSK. Any reason why there are more details on sathint and lynsat for Dish Network vs DirecTV?
I read that Dish Network uses "turbo coded FEC" which helps with efficiency. I don't think you can get away with that on Ka considering the different power and rain fade margins.
How wide is a Dish Network transponder vs DirecTV? They are getting 8 and sometimes 10 HD in one Tp.
Most movies or shows that are broadcast look soft compared to Blu-ray!
But my comparison is AMC vs. most other 1080i broadcasts. I maintain that AMC is soft due to compression, bit-starving, whatever you wish to call it.
Content quality: Essential! And, as you say, variable. You can ruin a beautifully filmed movie by bit-starving or poor compression, but you can't make a badly filmed piece look great by putting it on Blu-ray or broadcasting it at high rates.
Not that important - just stick with final bitrate, that is the metric to count channels and its individual bitrate [I wouldn't use the word "bandwidth") after statmux encoders.
We had a few posts asking about DTV 8PSK a few times, and I gave the answer a few times. How you missed that ?
Honestly there's so many acronyms I may of read something too quickly and easily mistaken QPSK for 8PSK (read fast it's only one character different). So yeah anything could of happened!
Perhaps it was 16PSK that was determined that at least for direct to home would be out of this question.
I only watch original content on AMC, so the only other places I've been able to compare content is from Blu-ray. MM and TWD comparisons fare badly because of the styles of the individual shows. HOW had some AMAZING scenic shots on AMC-HD last year, which tells me that AMC-HD CAN look great... but it depends on the content.
I'm not arguing that a higher bit-rate can't improve the picture, I'm simply stating that AMC-HD (as it is) can be capable of great PQ if the content isn't too challenging.
Here seems to be a pretty thorough calculator http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/bitrates.htm but I'm not sure the answers to all the questions.
Just trying to figure out how Dish gets so many more channels per transponder.
I did post real bitrates - measured, not calculated.
So now the question is, how much of the 25% gain in channel capacity brought about by the new encoding techologies applies to these numbers. Something like 12.5% reduction in overhead(FEC, etc.) and 12.5% increase in overall throughput? More of one less of the other?
Is that somewhat in neighborhood of how it works?
I thought the 44 national HD transponders (D10/D11/D12) were QPSK 2/3 39 Mbps.
P, you agree?
Umm, no - these are a mix of many different combinations. And changing sometimes.
And again - these numbers are BITRATE, mux bitrate.
Hmmm, I'm just talking about the 14 on D10, 14 on D11, and 16 on D12. You thinking they are not all the same (QPSK 2/3)?