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

HD compression

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by hoopsbwc34, May 26, 2010.

  1. Dec 5, 2010 #141 of 257
    Tweakophyte

    Tweakophyte Mentor

    33
    0
    Dec 11, 2004
    Dumb question... does anybody send a high-quality signal anymore? I love the Dish interface, but I am disappointed with the PQ these days.
     
  2. Dec 5, 2010 #142 of 257
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,599
    370
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Fios is pretty nice.
     
  3. Dec 5, 2010 #143 of 257
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,981
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Take FVOD titles, especially in 1080p - should be in 1920x1080x24 with good [15 Mbps] bitrate. Costly? I know.
     
  4. Dec 6, 2010 #144 of 257
    audiomaster

    audiomaster DBSTalk Club Member

    383
    8
    Jun 24, 2004
    I wish Dish would give us the ability to trim unwanted program length from the front and back of our recorded programs.
     
  5. Dec 6, 2010 #145 of 257
    good

    good Mentor

    38
    0
    Dec 6, 2010
    Not sure if I've get you right but, speaking of source, you're talking about resolution on both HDCam and DVCProHD acquisition format?
     
  6. Dec 6, 2010 #146 of 257
    whatchel1

    whatchel1 Hall Of Fame

    1,086
    0
    Jan 10, 2006
    I don't think he is. You are correct as both of those camera formats are 1440 X 1080.
     
  7. Dec 6, 2010 #147 of 257
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,981
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    You should forget this, it's from previous century. :)

    Seriously, check cameras/production equipment/archives of content providers which format they are using NOW !
     
  8. Dec 6, 2010 #148 of 257
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Regardless of what resolution the content was filmed in, it is being distributed by production teams and broadcasters in either 1280×720 or 1920×1080. Dish Network altering it to 1440x1080, coupled with low bitrates, just adds to the degradation. It's visible, it's obvious, it's factual.
     
  9. Dec 6, 2010 #149 of 257
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,981
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Some ppl prefer to nitpicking words/numbers and not look out to a window, sorry - TV screen.
     
  10. Dec 7, 2010 #150 of 257
    good

    good Mentor

    38
    0
    Dec 6, 2010
    What make you think that I don't know? You shouldn't jump so fast to conclusion ...

    And, leaving behind numbers and speaking of screens, some say that most important for viewers are contrast ratio, color saturation, color accuracy and,at the end, resolution ... and, btw, is not vertical resolution that matter most?

    How low are biterates now?
     
  11. Dec 7, 2010 #151 of 257
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,981
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Since you're new on forums - simple advise: read the thread and follow URLs from posts.
    The answer is done on previous pages.
     
  12. Dec 7, 2010 #152 of 257
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,981
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    While I'm for all that important parameters, Vres is one cornerstones of right picture. Blurring details will never be positive factor of good picture.
     
  13. Dec 8, 2010 #153 of 257
    good

    good Mentor

    38
    0
    Dec 6, 2010
    I've seen your graphic with hd channels and, boy!:eek2:, 1440 is hardly the problem :nono2:...
    That's what happen with biterates when you're in a mad race for counting more hd channels ... using DVB-S modulation! Even the best (contribution) encoders can't go below 10 Mbps without producing noticeable artifacts ...
     
  14. Dec 8, 2010 #154 of 257
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,682
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    Bandwidth is limited. The vast majority of people would take 80 slightly blurred channels (unnoticeable to most of them) over 50 slightly clearer channels.
     
  15. Dec 8, 2010 #155 of 257
    good

    good Mentor

    38
    0
    Dec 6, 2010
    So is Earth.

    Generally speaking, it's true that most people see, but only a handful will notice ... but, than again, "slightly blurred" at those biterates?!? :nono: I seriously doubt that.
     
  16. Dec 8, 2010 #156 of 257
    James Long

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

    45,749
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Have you seen it or is your opinion based only on numbers?
     
  17. Dec 8, 2010 #157 of 257
    good

    good Mentor

    38
    0
    Dec 6, 2010
    Dish HD channels no. I've seen other HD channels at different biterates. From what I've seen, channels with content 1080i and below 10 Mbps show visible artifacts, especially at fast movement, camera pan, sudden image change ...
    I asume that what's well below, must be a little more than "slightly blurred".
    Moreover, if anyone wants to check, it will find out that others, using S2, put also only 8 (sometimes 9) channels in one tp and S2 gives a biterate around 65 Mbps (8PSK 3/4).
    I've also mentioned something about encoders ...
     
  18. Dec 8, 2010 #158 of 257
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,981
    177
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    I wouldn't say 65/8 ~8 Mbps per channel is good number as you pointed to 10 Mbps is critical for dynamic episodes.
     
  19. Dec 8, 2010 #159 of 257
    HobbyTalk

    HobbyTalk Hall Of Fame

    1,682
    0
    Jul 14, 2007
    It would appear that Dish is happy being in the middle. FIOS and possibly D* being better with cable and uVerse being worse. I personally haven't seen where D* is better (neighbor has it but it's hard compare unless side-by-side) but I will defer to the few that claim it is better in some cases.
     
  20. Dec 9, 2010 #160 of 257
    good

    good Mentor

    38
    0
    Dec 6, 2010
    Since I'm new of forum :gott:, maybe I should follow footsteps of some "classics" :up: and say that "nitpicking words/numbers" buys you first class ticket to ... nowhere, just because simple math won't do it.

    But, since I'm good :righton:, I wouldn't say that. As your chart shows, biterates are variable, 'cause statistic studies show that channels rarely encounter fast action scenes (i.e. requiring higher biterates) in the same time. That's why they came up with "statistical multiplexing", where several channels share the same bandwidth, obviously finite, 'cause spectrum of the transmission and that must not vary. Thus, if let's say one channel has "dynamic episode" and obviously in need for increased bitrate, the mux allocate more bandwidth by instructing the encoder of that specific channel (if the channels content is studied before and grouping them is based on that, and also bandwidth is enough, you'll experience peaks of even 15-16 Mbps in some). Obviously than again, this isn't possible if other channels are "having" the same needs, that's why what I've said before in between brackets is also important.

    This idea for that kind of multiplexing was around before (and implemented) in telecommunication industry, long before IP became an real (and cheaper) alternative, when reliable transport was TDM ... which still reigns.
     

Share This Page