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

#41 OFFLINE   TomH

TomH

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 125 posts
Joined: Jun 11, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:13 AM

Precisely. In this presentation, Dish also stated that the chipset required to do this is essentially a miniature silicon computer, which, even if the cost could be reduced to only $10, would still cost E* billions to swap out 25 million receivers.



$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????

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

#42 Guest_gpflepsen_*

Guest_gpflepsen_*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:36 AM

$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????


$10 for the chip

$25 for shipping to and back

$15 labor for receiver work

(10+25+15)*25x10E6 = 1.25 Billions. :)

#43 OFFLINE   Antknee

Antknee

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 136 posts
Joined: Oct 13, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 07:54 AM

Well, it is pretty apparent that none of know anything for sure, so please for love of God do not panic!!! (sarcasm)

#44 OFFLINE   Mikey

Mikey

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,295 posts
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:01 AM

Well, it is pretty apparent that none of know anything for sure, so please for love of God do not panic!!! (sarcasm)

I think Jason knows something. His E* contacts poo-poo'd the whole concept.

#45 OFFLINE   jrb531

jrb531

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 916 posts
Joined: May 28, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:23 AM

I really hope they don't try some half-baked software decoding that will let MPEG-2 receivers read the MPEG-4, but not at quite the same level of PQ as a true hardware decoder. This would give Dish an excuse for not upgrading us because we can view the added channels (just not quite as sharp).


What's wrong with this for most people? I have a 501 and 508 connected to SD TV's and 1 811 on my HD TV.

What do I care (and I suspect millions of others with SD TV's) care if the HD signal is downgraded some if the full HD cannot be seen on SD TV's anyway?

I suspect that they will transmit in one of the lower HD standards (rem how many HD screen resolutions are supported? that most of the current newer SD sets can view but not 1024i.

I'm a realist and swapping out millions of boxes will cost alot of $$$ and in the end we'll all pay for it either up front or in higher fees.

I support HD tv 100% but what good will spening the extra $$$ do if it forces me to buy new tv's for which I do not have the $$ for right now.

I suspect millions of other people will not be hot at the idea of having to pay for new boxes to see nothing extra until they buy new sets.

If this "half step" (and we are all guessing at this point) gets us a better picture for free then I'm all for it. Little by little as people by new HD sets people will upgrade to the new "real" Mpeg4 boxes. Seems like a win-win to me.

-JB

#46 Guest_gpflepsen_*

Guest_gpflepsen_*
  • Guests
Joined: --

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:36 AM

In case you missed it, This thread is useless. It was started on the wrong premise and is perpetuated even after E* officially debunked it. MPEG-2 Receivers will not display the upcoming MPEG-4 transmission scheme. Nothing to see here, move along.

#47 OFFLINE   Nick

Nick

    Keep going - don't give up!

  • Topic Starter
  • DBSTalk Club
  • 21,360 posts
  • LocationThe Beautiful Golden Isles of Coastal Georgia
Joined: Apr 23, 2002

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:45 AM

$10 x 25 million receivers = "billions" ????

Yes.

Obviously, the $10 chipset isn't the only cost assocated with designing, manufacturing and rolling out a new IRD. Do your own math. As I wrote that comment, I was actually wondering if someone would overlook the many other costs of producing a new box and come back to challenge me on my statement.

.


~ 12 Year Anniversary ~
Charter Gold Club Member
DBSTalk Club ~ 21k Club
Top 10 Poster

.


#48 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,261 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 25 October 2005 - 08:48 AM

What's wrong with this for most people? I have a 501 and 508 connected to SD TV's and 1 811 on my HD TV.

What do I care (and I suspect millions of others with SD TV's) care if the HD signal is downgraded some if the full HD cannot be seen on SD TV's anyway?

-JB


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....

#49 OFFLINE   olgeezer

olgeezer

    Guest

  • Registered
  • 1,833 posts
Joined: Dec 05, 2003

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:02 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....


The conjecture in this thread does not have to do with Jason's clarification of the original post. Many of us thought that was the intent of the original post. The discussion is primarily a vision along the possibilities as to how the change to MPEG4 may occur.

#50 OFFLINE   Mikey

Mikey

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,295 posts
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Posted 25 October 2005 - 09:10 AM

The conjecture in this thread does not have to do with Jason's clarification of the original post. Many of us thought that was the intent of the original post. The discussion is primarily a vision along the possibilities as to how the change to MPEG4 may occur.

At least it's not FRONT PAGE news any more.

#51 OFFLINE   Chris Blount

Chris Blount

    Creator of DBSTalk

  • Administrators
  • 17,190 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.

#52 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,298 posts
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
  • 1,261 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
  • 17,190 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...