DBSTalk Forum banner

Will DirecTV move to H.265?

11K views 148 replies 26 participants last post by  P Smith 
#1 ·
Hope not. I'd hate to give up my HR20-700 w/ built in OTA.
 
#52 ·
Hoosier205 said:
...you're behind the times. Many networks are using MPEG-4 for distribution and have been for awhile.
HBO completed there transition in October 2009.

That being said, it is entirely likely that one method is more "recompressable" than the other.
 
#55 ·
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.
I understood what you meant, it just got lost a bit with that example. :)
 
#56 ·
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.
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.

You compared transcoding to ripping to a CD. Ripping is a sampling technique. Coding is not a sampling technique. It is a method of maintaining data in a more efficient form.

It is more like running WinZip to save size on your disk drive. WinZip stores the data differently to compact it but the data is there. I am not saying that transcoding is perfect but it is more akin to zip than it is to rip.

Edit: Besides, your claim fails. Everyone agrees that quality got much better when DirecTV went from MPEG2 to MPEG4, which allowed them to better utilize the bandwidth and get more data to your screen.
 
#58 ·
P Smith said:
:D

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
Closer than to rip. That was the point.
 
#60 ·
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.
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.
 
#64 ·
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.
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.
 
#69 ·
tonyd79 said:
Fios claims they do not do a damned thing to signals.
When and where did they claim that?

Verizon continues to let the public believe that they are offering a modern IPTV service when they're actually using a conventional QAM system just as all the cable TV carriers do.

We also know that FIOS uses MoCA and that puts an upper limit on their available bandwidth so working backwards, we take 580 channels (150+ in HD) and pack it all into about 1.2GHz and the math doesn't add up. The HD channels alone would seem to consume the entire bandwidth budget.

I suspect that this "hands off" thing is another one of those items of lore that Verizon is willing to let the consumers believe even though it isn't true.
 
#73 ·
DirecTV hasn't even finished the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 transition. By its nature, large scale broadcast installations like DirecTV or Dish or the local cable company will always be behind the times. MPEG-4 hit at just the right time and DirecTV jumped on it. They could have waited, but they needed the improved bandwidth and there were dirt cheap decoder chips ready then. H.265 will take a long time to get finalized, rolled out, perfected, etc. By the time DirecTV is ready to do another transition there will be something better out there.

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.
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)

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?
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).

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.
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.

tonyd79 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.
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 TV
 
#75 ·
Hoosier205 said:
That is not the case.
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
 
#76 ·
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
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top