Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

MPEG-4 on MPEG-2 receivers? (Not so much)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
54 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   Chris Blount

Chris Blount

    Creator of DBSTalk

  • Administrators
  • 17,207 posts
Joined: Jun 22, 2001

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:21 AM

I guess I must take some of the responsibility here. I posted a pointer on our home page to this thread but phrased it more as a question rather than official news. Some may have taken it as an official DBSTalk news item which was not the intention. The post on the home page has been removed.

Nick's original post was an interesting one but we were not going to announce it as "verified" until we checked it out ourselves. What you all should know though is that the ideas presented in this thread have actually helped Dish begin to think more about the the MPEG4 transition and ways to make it work easier for everyone.

So despite whether or not Nick's original post was correct, the thread as a whole has helped.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,141 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 25 October 2005 - 10:04 AM

It always pays to check things out before passing them on. In this case DISH madea rather confusing announcement.

It wasn't an announcement. it was an EDITED speech from a trade show. Think of it as an advanced Charlie Chat answer. :)

Anyways .. thanks Jason and contacts for the clarification.

JL

#53 OFFLINE   jrb531

jrb531

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 916 posts
Joined: May 28, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 10:56 AM

Clearly the MPEG 4 transition is more of interest to those of us who already own an HD set. You really wouldn't care if your HD picture was degraded???

Anyway, gpflepsen is right. This whole forward compatibility has been debunked. End of story....


"I" would care and "you" would care but the vast majority of people still do not have HD sets and/or HD boxes and I specualte that those people would not take too kindly to being forced to pay for something they either cannot use or care about.

Current TV's can display a much higher resolution and quality than currently is being used. Most people would be happy with DVD "quality" and although Dish does use that resolution (or near it) the PQ is often not even close to DVD quality due to compression.

MPEG4 will help with this "only" if used to lower the compression instead of adding more channels. Sure our HD channels look good now but that's only because they do not compress the hell out of them. If you think MPEG4 will be used to improve PQ instead of adding HD locals and other HD I have some swamp land to sell you. It's going to be used to add more channels that we all will pay for.

I, for one, want "less" channels at a lower cost. I'm not looking for more. Just let me pick the channels "I" want, deliver them to me with a high quality signal with minimal compression and I will be happy to pay Dish's distribution costs.

Making the three set packages "bigger" and a higher cost to us may be great for the "channel counters" but for the rest of us who only watch a handfull of channels it just means a bigger bill for the same few channels we do watch.

I can get my local channels for free over the air so this does nothing for me.

So the way I see it... I have 1 HD set and an 811. When I want to watch something in HD I watch it on that set. The rest of the time (95% of the time) I watch everything on the 501 and 508 and I'm very happy with those.

This "upgrade" is going to do nothing but cost me alot of $$$. Sure I'll be able to "downconvert" the HD stuff to the SD TV's but what is the point?

I know change is never easy. I know the change to MPEG4 is needed but it does not have to happen overnight.

If I was dish I would upgrade the current HD boxes for a reasonble cost first. People with HD setups are less likely to mind paying for "some" of the upgrade. Leave everyone else alone and just "phase in" the new "duel boxes" for everyone else as the equipment wears out. Once the majority of your customers have the duel boxes you can offer a "can't beat it" price for the remaining customers.

Sure this will mean the conversion will take years but so what?

Most people do not really care if we can see the wrinkles on the reporters face - we watch the news to get the news.

*smiles*

-JB

-JB

#54 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,267 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 11:09 AM

MPEG4 will help with this "only" if used to lower the compression instead of adding more channels. Sure our HD channels look good now but that's only because they do not compress the hell out of them. If you think MPEG4 will be used to improve PQ instead of adding HD locals and other HD I have some swamp land to sell you. It's going to be used to add more channels that we all will pay for.

I,

*smiles*

-JB

-JB


I don't think anyone on this thread believed the MPEG-4 transition ever meant an increase in PQ. Obviously it is for more channels, hopefully with no LOSS of PQ.

#55 OFFLINE   Chris Blount

Chris Blount

    Creator of DBSTalk

  • Administrators
  • 17,207 posts
Joined: Jun 22, 2001

Posted 25 October 2005 - 11:19 AM

In the interest of everyone concerned, I am closing this thread.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...