[karlhenri]

This is probably not yet feasible, but I am throwing it out there.

I was just reading the Gamemix thread and how really great the feature looked for football.

How would you feel about the ability to create your own mix channel?

Should DirecTV look into developing that ability?

What would you put on it? What would it be useful for?

Is this feasible already? What would it take to make it feasible technology and bandwidth wise.

If it is too hard to make what's the next best thing?

Here is what I would use it for:

- Alternate between different sports: Football, Soccer on Sundays; Olympic mix if there is none; baseball, NBA or Hockey during the week; 3rd match in first round of World Cup (Played concurrently to prevent cheating etc.)
- To watch a movie and keep a couple games up.

 

[usmcbob55]

I'd want stuff for the kids on top Sprout, Boomerang, and Nick Toons.
On the bottom I want NFL Network and ESPN News and I'd like a floater sports channel for whatever game is on.
Then I could hang out with my little punks without shipping them to another room.

 

[Stuart Sweet]

Old SD receivers had a feature like this where it would strobe back and forth between channels. Some people really liked it but the processing load would be a lot higher when you're talking about multiple satellites, multiple resolutions, and multiple encoding methods.

 

[paulman182]

I guess you would need tuners for however many windows you had on the screen at once. It might get expensive, but it would be neat.

 

[DBSNewbie]

I jokingly voted, "Get Six Receivers and Six TVs..." because that's exactly the way I have it set up in the den.

But on a serious note, a custom mix channel is too complicated to actually work. D* would have to set up an actual channel at their broadcast center and beam it to the Satellites to show every combination of feeds each subscriber wanted.

Or, the receiver would have to have up to six tuners to "lock into" the sub's channel choices to show them on the screen at once.

 

[dodge boy]

I think using the 2 tuners in one of the DVRs to give you Picture in Picture would be better, and easier!

 

[fluffybear]

I would really like to have this feature but as others have already pointed out, it wouldn't be feasible

 

[DarinC]

I jokingly voted, "Get Six Receivers and Six TVs..." because that's exactly the way I have it set up in the den.

Do you live in a hatch on an uncharted island?

 

[ejohnson]

I think using the 2 tuners in one of the DVRs to give you Picture in Picture would be better, and easier!

+1

 

[DBSNewbie]

Do you live in a hatch on an uncharted island?

:lol:

No. Just someone who likes watching movies/shows with the wife and kids and still being able to keep an eye on a game or two... or five.

 

[Supervolcano]

Not only would you need 8 tuners to get 8 channels into the mix, but you'd need 4 or more times the current processing power to display it all.

 

[karlhenri]

Not only would you need 8 tuners to get 8 channels into the mix, but you'd need 4 or more times the current processing power to display it all.

Thinking through it a bit, there are a few ways that would not work. It could not be a real channel because there would be too many permutations and it would require too much bandwidth.

From my level of understanding of technology, here are a few ways it could be created:

- Use the on-demand feature. From your TV or internet, you go to a mix builder page and select a few channels. Software on a server at Directv takes the input from the channels you selected and provides a video stream that could be accessible in seconds. Requires a high bandwidth connection. Might require a lot of processing power at DirecTV.

- Use local processing power either in the box or in a user's PC. Kind of like what you described. Leverage that new feature where you only need that one cable to connect to the satellite but you can tune in multiple channels. Down res the feeds as needed for the screen split and combine in software at the box.
- Use one tuner that polls across 4 channels at once. If this can be done fast enough, and it is combined with some sort of buffering and frame holding (a la 3/3 pulldown) you will have 15fps video per separate channel. or 30 fps in whichever quadrant you highlight and 10fps in the others.
- Same as above, but with two tuners. Enhanced quality or more screens.

 

[Supervolcano]

Thinking through it a bit, there are a few ways that would not work. It could not be a real channel because there would be too many permutations and it would require too much bandwidth.

You replied to me, so I feel compelled to reply back.

What I said isn't based on the permutations of directv creating the mix channels in their studio. It's based on the receiver doing all the work to combine 8 seperate channels into one "on the fly".

Remember, DirecTV has like 26 million customer!!!

From my level of understanding of technology, here are a few ways it could be created:

- Use the on-demand feature. From your TV or internet, you go to a mix builder page and select a few channels. Software on a server at Directv takes the input from the channels you selected and provides a video stream that could be accessible in seconds. Requires a high bandwidth connection. Might require a lot of processing power at DirecTV.

This isn't really feasible since it would probably require "one extremely powerful server PER CUSTOMER"!!! I sincerely doubt one server could handle multiple requests of splicing together 8 independently requested signals into one feed per customer.

- Use local processing power either in the box or in a user's PC. Kind of like what you described. Leverage that new feature where you only need that one cable to connect to the satellite but you can tune in multiple channels. Down res the feeds as needed for the screen split and combine in software at the box.

Yes, this is what I described, but it would require 8 tuners to tune in 8 seperate channels.

And the processor it would require would need to be UNGODLY HUGE, because it would have to decrypt, decode, authorize, mix, and display each of the 8 tuners at one time. Think about it, the current processor has enough problems doing this for 1 tuner, much less 8 tuners!!!

- Use one tuner that polls across 4 channels at once. If this can be done fast enough, and it is combined with some sort of buffering and frame holding (a la 3/3 pulldown) you will have 15fps video per separate channel. or 30 fps in whichever quadrant you highlight and 10fps in the others.

To do this, you still need 1 tuner per picture as it takes time for tuner switching. This is why it takes two seconds to switch channels on the current setup.

And again, the processor to do all this would have to be immense to decrypt, decode, authorize, mix, and display each feed.

- Same as above, but with two tuners. Enhanced quality or more screens.

Now we are becoming a little more "reasonable", but probably STILL not "FEASIBLE" for the current dvr's out in the field, since their processors aren't upgradable via a software upgrade.

All in all, it's a great idea, and something I'd absolutely adore since I only have one tv per room these days, but it's gonna take another decade before this type of 8 tuner mix thing will ever be realistically implemented on the fly per customer request.

Jetson's, here we come!!!

 

[karlhenri]

You replied to me, so I feel compelled to reply back.

I welcome that. I would like to see more discussion on this.

Remember, DirecTV has like 26 million customer!!!

This isn't really feasible since it would probably require "one extremely powerful server PER CUSTOMER"!!! I sincerely doubt one server could handle multiple requests of splicing together 8 independently requested signals into one feed per customer.

How much server power does something like ESPN360, HULU or YouTube need to handle all that streaming at once?

Granted, on the down side, we are talking hi-def feeds for Directv, but other those sites handle millions of requests and I have not heard of YouTube crashing. So the 26 million or some smaller fraction of it could be handled as far as having millions streaming from a site at once.

Now someone would need to come up with a clever algorithm, that alleviates the need to separately build each person's choice of split screen in real time.

For example: DTV has 300 channels. let say they settle on a six screen format. If you could simply invest in the resources that would create the mini window-size data streams (say 640x420), then you could feed those via the high speed to the receivers. How much processor power would a receiver need to recombine those into a 1080i live-motion split-6-way window?

I don't know, i am just throwing this out there. But if turns out to be the right way to do this, I perhaps should flesh this out some more and call the patent office. :eek2: :joy:

 

[DarinC]

I don't think it's really practical to have it completley customizable. But it seems to me that what they COULD do would be to provide a lot more mix screens than they do now by combining them in the box rather than have a separate mix feed. If they grouped the channels on the transponders into logical "mix" groups, you could see all the necessary feeds with one tuner. Obviously, you'd use the SD feeds, but if, for example, all the sports channels that were to be in a "mix channel" shared one transponder, you'd only need one tuner to get it done. But you would need multiple decoders, and probably a little more HP than the current boxes have.

 

[glorman]

I'd love just to see the current Sports and news mixes offered in HD.

 

[karlhenri]

I don't think it's really practical to have it completley customizable. But it seems to me that what they COULD do would be to provide a lot more mix screens than they do now by combining them in the box rather than have a separate mix feed. If they grouped the channels on the transponders into logical "mix" groups, you could see all the necessary feeds with one tuner. Obviously, you'd use the SD feeds, but if, for example, all the sports channels that were to be in a "mix channel" shared one transponder, you'd only need one tuner to get it done. But you would need multiple decoders, and probably a little more HP than the current boxes have.

PEM on the one tuner by transponder thing. From what you are saying each trasnponder is on a separate frequency and combines all the channels for that transponder at once?

Slightly off-topic: Beyond user convenience, is there any advantage gained by DTV in moving the Channel Numbers around? Is that connected to what transponder things are on or there is no relationship really?

 

[DarinC]

PEM on the one tuner by transponder thing. From what you are saying each trasnponder is on a separate frequency and combines all the channels for that transponder at once?

PEM? Not sure what that is. But yes, in satellite terms, a transponder is equivelent to a broadcast frequency. Multiple channels are multiplexed into a single transmission. So what I'm saying is, if the boxes could decode multiple streams at one time, they wouldn't need individual tuners for each window IF they grouped the channels logically into groups that you'd want to mix.

 

[karlhenri]

PEM? Not sure what that is. But yes, in satellite terms, a transponder is equivelent to a broadcast frequency. Multiple channels are multiplexed into a single transmission. So what I'm saying is, if the boxes could decode multiple streams at one time, they wouldn't need individual tuners for each window IF they grouped the channels logically into groups that you'd want to mix.

PEM is "Please Enlighten Me."

Looking at the transponder map there, http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1191863&postcount=2, there does not seem to be a programming-friendly pattern to the transponder cohabitation arrangements. There might some technical advantage for DTV, but based on what you said, if they put successive channels on same transponder, shouldn't that provide for faster channel surfing?

 

[dtrell]

youve got to be kidding...D cant even give you picture in picture on their HD box, and you want a 6 channel mix???