Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by Rob37, Oct 13, 2020.
Did D* ever have receivers that did 240i?
No. There are internal formats used to compress signals so they take up less space on the satellite feeds. I assume the "240i" comment was intended to be an insult to DIRECTV for using such a compression format (similar to the way "HD Lite" was used to insult DIRECTV and DISH for not using full aspect ratio resolution in their compression formats).
There is a "240p" format that would apply to NTSC broadcasting at a lower than standard resolution. 480i/480p would be the current "standard definition" formats comparable to NTSC.
Given that it appears that they told their partners that they would have this done a year ago, I doubt they stretched it out because they discovered contracts that would prohibit it. I can't imagine that a drilling platform could possibly have any issues with seeing all of the satellites and as I pointed out, there's nothing preventing the use of HD equipment with SDTVs.
Another reason that they need to upgrade the legacy-legacy people, not an excuse for delaying it.
You can't finish such a task until sometime after you start.
Back in the day there was someone who used to measure the bitrate of various DIRECTV channels and post their results. There was often speculation that scaling was being used as the bitrate was unbelievably low for the resolution.
As you know, the receivers certainly support scaling (both up and down) of different resolutions to fit whatever your TV is.
I believe at least Red Zone is 1080p now.
Who it was ? And I did parse metadata of unencrypted [barking] SD channels, lowest resolution I remember was 384x480i and rarely 240x480i
It was called the Dallas/Ft. Worth HDTV Bitrate Monitor.
The Widescreen Movie Center - DFW HDTV Bitrate Monitor
This chart shows the channels that were broadcast in "HD Lite" but it also shows a couple of SD channels in the red and that was back when DIRECTV SD channels were decent.
Swanni had an article back in 2017 talking about how many DIRECTV NOW HD channels were streaming in 540p so DIRECTV isn't averse to making adjustments to vertical resolution when they need to.
WELL... His base is TiVo file's size, back to 2004.
If you could find snapshots what I posted here back then... I got them straight from DTV transponders on Ku and Ka freqs
That sounds like your problem, not mine.
I don't think it is reasonable to assume that the DIRECTiVos were doing anything other than storing the video streams as downlinked.
It's depend on DVR's OS, its file system govern a content of recordings ! Especially for TiVo with his "slices" methodology...
Do you know of any DIRECTV HD capable DVR that has ever done anything other than store the feed as downlinked?
yes, filtered out the feed [one stream carry many channels, SI, etc]. added timestamps...
I made an error in phrasing the question as DIRECTV HD DVRs encrypt the video stream before writing it to mass storage but that doesn't change the size of the resultant file.
Whether you measure it instantaneously or over time, the average will be the same.
nope, it will depend on other program's bitrate what would be dynamic process by a nature of statmux device
The graph of the bitrate gives you additional important information but it doesn't change the average bitrate over the duration of the program. Both measurements should give the same number within the negligible overhead of mass storage.
It should be your equipment for such firm statement ...
The mathematics of averaging in the digital domain doesn't depend on equipment or who owns it.
If there are differences, the TiVo file size measurement would logically overstate the average bitrate by a very small amount so the streams would be minimally worse than documented.
WELL...can you imagine that statmux loaded by different content of channels each time, so you can't enter into same water twice