Hope not. I'd hate to give up my HR20-700 w/ built in OTA.
HBO completed there transition in October 2009.Hoosier205 said:...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.
You should have offered a link to it to establish the context. Things may (or may not) be different now with six channels/TP.SledgeHammer said:Found that info right here on DbsTalk .
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2460720#post2460720harsh said:You should have offered a link to it to establish the context. Things may (or may not) be different now with six channels/TP.
I understood what you meant, it just got lost a bit with that example.SledgeHammer;3172011 said:Yes, bad example . A transcode compression would be more like ripping a dual layer DVD down to 4.7GB so you can fit it on a single layer. Same resolution, just compressed to 75% or whatever of the original vs. a 1:1 rip.
Or like when somebody posts a movie online and its a 300MB file for a 2hr movie.
At a certain compression ratio (same resolution), you start to see artifacts.
Can somebody in the know actual confirm that DirecTV is passing on the broadcast AS IS without compressing it further to save bandwidth?
TBH, I would find that EXTREMELY hard to believe. I can't imagine that DirecTV gets the same quality feed from NBC or FOX or CNN that we get in our houses. I suspect it is much higher quality and compressed down for broadcast.
You are not understanding encoding at all. Mere size does not tell you what you are getting but no one is going to tell you that DirecTV or ANY broadcast is at Blu Ray level, anyway.SledgeHammer said:Ok, guys... found some stats to "back up my claim"
BluRay quality is typically around 40Mb/s and DirecTV HD is around 8Mb/s.
Found that info right here on DbsTalk .
So what I was saying, was DirecTV probably gets it from the broadcaster in "BluRay quality" and compresses to 25% or whatever.
Closer than to rip. That was the point.P Smith said:
yeah, like WinZip ... sure my butt ...
to your please - lecture us as H.263 slices (I,B,P) transforming into H.264 ... don't hesitate to details each little step
What?P Smith;3172064 said:
yeah, like WinZip ... sure my butt ...
to your please - lecture us as H.263 slices (I,B,P) transforming into H.264 ... don't hesitate to details each little step
Because most everyone (except uVerse) uses adaptive bitrate encoding to squeeze multiple channels into a multiplex, I think it unlikely that any carrier is passing a signal straight through.tonyd79 said:And yet they show up on directv which only recodes and does not dowrez and fios which does neither. Actually, some feeds are mpeg4 from the source and directv does nothing to them.
I was looking for a translator, not an explanation.P Smith;3172070 said:skip it, it's too much for you
Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.harsh said:Because most everyone (except uVerse) uses adaptive bitrate encoding to squeeze multiple channels into a multiplex, I think it unlikely that any carrier is passing a signal straight through.
Your posts are hard to understand, but not due to their substance.P Smith;3172075 said:that was the point
Due to the mind-boggling complexity of the syntax of the Elbonian language, the Universal Translator produces only hairballs when processing P Smith's dialog.Hoosier205 said:I was looking for a translator, not an explanation.
I had to look it up, but I'm glad I did. Nice one.harsh;3172096 said:Due to the mind-boggling complexity of the syntax of the Elbonian language, the Universal Translator produces only hairballs when processing P Smith's dialog.
When and where did they claim that?tonyd79 said:Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.
It can't.SledgeHammer said:Well, I'd be surprised if current hardware can do H265.
The Ku->Ka transition and the MPEG-4 transition, at a technical level, have nothing to do with one another. They could have easily (and I think do/have in the past) put MPEG-4 streams on the older Ku satellites. They just happened to have the satellites available (from the demise of the Spaceway internet plans) and just happened to be doing the MPEG-4 transition, so why not tie them together. It was a business decision, not a technical requirement to make MPEG-4 work. At any rate, the STBs and labor are the big cost drivers, not new dishes or LNBs. And they will always build new satellites no matter what, so the cost of a new satellite doesn't really factor into the equation (especially because the Ka birds probably weren't significantly more expensive than a Ku bird on a cost-per-bitrate basis)SledgeHammer said: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.
Thats irrelevant. One channel = 100 channels. Same difference.
With the MPEG2 -> MPEG4, they also switched from Ka -> Ku, so that was the big expense. If they can do H265 on the Ku band, they won't have to swap out anything except the boxes (even the latest boxes don't have the horsepower to do H265 via software only). With the Ka -> Ku switch, they had to launch new satellites, switch out all LNBs, multi-switches, new STBs, etc.
I was thinking about my original question, and honestly, it doesn't really make financial sense for DTV to switch out to H265 any time soon. Not like there are 100's of HD channels that they need to add.
They can add all the locals they want with spot beaming.
They don't care about compression ratios since they keep upping the bills and people keep paying and they aren't getting enough PQ complaints.
DirecTV, at some point, is always doing some kind of transcoding or compression of the signals they're sending up. With locals, they have two options of receiving the signal--a direct fiber feed from the station or an off-air antenna. Either way, they're receiving an "uncompressed" signal (definitely ATSC if using an antenna, and I'd assume it's likely the fiber feeds contain whatever the station sends to the broadcast tower--an MPEG-2 stream).Mike Greer said:Really?
So when I watch something on CBS who is doing the transcoding? DirecTV, my local broadcaster or CBS? How about when I watch my local news?
Wrong. The provider always re-encodes it (except for analog channels on cable). The signal provided by the programmer is always very high resolution and high bandwidth, and the providers don't have the bandwidth to turn that directly around to you.Hoosier205 said:It is already compressed and packaged when the broadcaster transmits it. The provider isn't doing that, aside from any additional compression necessary for their delivery system. The closest you'll get to a 8K -> 1080p type of scenario is if you are looking at the live, unaltered feed in a production truck at a live event or you are in the studio for a production. Once a network has it ready for transmission, it's already in their resolution (1080i or 720p) and bitrate of choice. Now, the provider can still reduce that resolution and bitrate. Some are better about it than others.
MPEG-4 is far more efficient than MPEG-2. Things have gotten better for us since DirecTV and various networks migrated to MPEG-4.
If Verizon is saying that, they're lying. FIOS is QAM cable, and then they use RF over Glass to convert it to fiber optics. It's not IPTV, and it is absolutely re-encoded because those signals from the programmers wouldn't be compatible with their set top boxes or your TVtonyd79 said:Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.
But, of course, I am sure you can make claims about other services you do not have.
That is not the case.JosephB;3172242 said:The signal provided by the programmer is always very high resolution and high bandwidth
Well, I will grant you that those terms are subjective and my definition of "high" or "very high" may not be the same as yours. And, I probably shouldn't have included resolution (that wouldn't change). However, the signal provided by the programmer will be a higher quality than the signal coming from DirecTVHoosier205 said:That is not the case.
I agree. I guess my point was that it isn't sent to the provider at as high a quality as it was when the content was created. A poor way of describing it, but: created as lossless in all its original glory, reformatted to still high quality lossy version and sent to the provider, then degraded a bit more in delivery by the provider.JosephB;3172268 said:Well, I will grant you that those terms are subjective and my definition of "high" or "very high" may not be the same as yours. And, I probably shouldn't have included resolution (that wouldn't change). However, the signal provided by the programmer will be a higher quality than the signal coming from DirecTV