· Hall Of Fame
I think we have heard consistently from those in the Chicago market that the MPEG4 stations are pretty good.hasan said:Either you have a rare high performing MPEG-4 system, or your visitors are not very discerning. Differences between MPEG-4 via D* and OTA vary from "slight" to "you've got to be kidding", with a lot more reports on the latter side of things. Congrats on having a good MPEG-4 source...it's nice to hear, as we are all going to be stuck with it sooner or later. (via D*)
I have to ask...are you familiar with the standards or are you assuming any conversion is a bad thing?hasan said:1. The source for MPEG-4 via satellite is MPEG-2 OTA...so they are transcoding MPEG-2 to MPEG-4...not a very good idea.
Evidence for bit starving on MPEG4? I thought Earl's contacts told him they were at full up MPEG4. Or are you assuming the bird squeeze that is affecting the MPEG2 HD is the culprit. I thought we were talking different birds and spot beams so the squeeze isn't there.hasan said:2. Inadequate bandwidth on the satellites at this point. They are bit starved and getting worse, not better. Until they get more birds up, it will only continue.
That is just not true. You are assuming that the OTA has no errors from multipath, etc., and no slight blips in signal. If you have rock solid perfect OTA signal, then OTA would be as good or better but from my experience, it is damned hard for many to get perfect OTA reception.hasan said:There is no free lunch. The best PQ currently is OTA, period...there is no way that transcoded and bit starved MPEG-4 can equal the MPEG-2 coming OTA. It's just not possible. With everything optimized, the differences could be small, but a trained eye will pick up on them every time.