Hope not. I'd hate to give up my HR20-700 w/ built in OTA.
Well, I'm *sure* they will move to it at some point since it uses like 30% the bandwidth of H.264. That would allow for less compression, but I think DTV is more interested in adding channels, not reducing compression ratios.mreposter said:The standard just received first stage approval by the ITC this week. So I think you're safe for now.
You mean SD quality, right?SledgeHammer;3171397 said:Well, I'm *sure* they will move to it at some point since it uses like 30% the bandwidth of H.264. That would allow for less compression, but I think DTV is more interested in adding channels, not reducing compression ratios.
Too bad, the PQ has really gone down since ~2000... but my bill sure hasn't .
No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.tonyd79 said:You mean SD quality, right?
You know there is this new thing called HD?
Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.SledgeHammer;3171507 said:No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.
Have you ever actually looked at the HD picture from not 15' or whatever away? I know you don't sit 2" from the TV, but look at it that close once. Lots of compression artifacts, pixelation, jaggies, gradiation issues, etc. I sit about 12' away from my 50" TV and I can see compression artifacts, etc. quite often. Not my signal. Everything is all 90+.
Do you have OTA hooked up? Do a side by side of a 1080i program from OTA vs. the same channel from DirecTV. You'll see the OTA version is quite a bit sharper.
Exactly. A move to H265 would require a swap out of millions of existing HD boxes. The newest generation Directv just introduced might have chipsets that support the new algorithms, but all the others have much older chips.dpeters11 said:But the reality is we're talking a long time, if it happens and requires new hardware. There's a big difference from when they moved HD from MPEG2 to MPEG4. There are a LOT more receivers that would need replaced.
Well -that was a switch from bit-starved over-compressed MPEG2 to MPEG4.tonyd79 said:Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.
I did until I decided to upgrade to an HR34 and retired my HR20. I had made extensive tests of OTA vs. DIRECTV® and found no difference in acuity, contrast or saturation. (Even though I was expecting OTA to edge out the satellite transmission!)SledgeHammer said:No, I mean HD quality. HD quality is not all that great due to the high compression ratios.
Have you ever actually looked at the HD picture from not 15' or whatever away? I know you don't sit 2" from the TV, but look at it that close once. Lots of compression artifacts, pixelation, jaggies, gradiation issues, etc. I sit about 12' away from my 50" TV and I can see compression artifacts, etc. quite often. Not my signal. Everything is all 90+.
Do you have OTA hooked up? Do a side by side of a 1080i program from OTA vs. the same channel from DirecTV. You'll see the OTA version is quite a bit sharper.
Who can't? :lol: Mike, seriously, you don't think there could be better codecs than MPEG2? Basis?Mike Greer said:Well -that was a switch from bit-starved over-compressed MPEG2 to MPEG4.
You can't get better than the original MPEG2 the broadcasters use regardless of the type of re-processing compression used.
No one can!Laxguy said:Who can't? :lol: Mike, seriously, you don't think there could be better codecs than MPEG2? Basis?
I dunno, I'm looking at my TV on "mainstream" HD channels, and I see gradiations, pixelation, jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. Its not a bad picture mind you, but its not a good picture either. I shouldn't see that kind of stuff on the mainstream HD channels like USA, CNN, etc. Ok, I'd expect to see it on the obscure channels like Golf and Fishing channels.tonyd79 said:Considering the HD took a large increase in quality with mpeg4, I disagree.
Well, I'd be surprised if current hardware can do H265. You can't really do it in software as it is MUCH more intensive then H264.mreposter said:Exactly. A move to H265 would require a swap out of millions of existing HD boxes. The newest generation Directv just introduced might have chipsets that support the new algorithms, but all the others have much older chips.
Thats irrelevant. One channel = 100 channels. Same difference.mreposter said:There are over a 100 MPEG4 channels now that would have to be converted.
Panasonic 50" 1080p. Probably 5 to 6 yrs old.Laxguy said:I did until I decided to upgrade to an HR34 and retired my HR20. I had made extensive tests of OTA vs. DIRECTV® and found no difference in acuity, contrast or saturation. (Even though I was expecting OTA to edge out the satellite transmission!)
I sit 8' from a Samsung 58" plasma that's two years old.
What model and age TV have you?
Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.Mike Greer said:No one can!
I didn't say any codec was better than another. All I mean is that DirecTV cannot make the MPEG2 they receive from the broadcaster any better no matter what they do to it.
...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.Mike Greer;3171677 said:No one can!
I didn't say any codec was better than another. All I mean is that DirecTV cannot make the MPEG2 they receive from the broadcaster any better no matter what they do to it.
It can only go down from there.
The quality of the MPEG4 equipment will/does determine how much worse the re-encoded MPEG4 or MPEGWHATEVER will be - if any. But it won't be better than the original!
I think you need to have your setup looked at. I sure don't see what you are describing on my two LCD TV sets or when using my home theater projector. Sure I get digital blocks once in a great while due to atmospheric conditions but that is the worst I have.SledgeHammer said:I dunno, I'm looking at my TV on "mainstream" HD channels, and I see gradiations, pixelation, jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. Its not a bad picture mind you, but its not a good picture either. I shouldn't see that kind of stuff on the mainstream HD channels like USA, CNN, etc. Ok, I'd expect to see it on the obscure channels like Golf and Fishing channels.
I think we are talking about two different things... I'm talking about re-processing will always have some kind of loss of quality in this case. MPEG is not a loss-less compression method.SledgeHammer said:Not true. They compress it further after they get it from the broadcaster. Same way movies are shot in like 8K resolution and then reprocessed to 1080p.
I can't comment on what compression ratio they are using now since I don't know, but I do remember reading somewhere that they compress certain channels more then others. Like sports they compress less then the news or movies, etc.
Well thank you for dragging me up to present day Mr. Friendly.Hoosier205 said:...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.