Team Summit: General Assembly Notes

[cparker]

vegassatellite,

Succinctly and intelligently presented. :

[KAB]

vegassatellite,

Succinctly and intelligently presented. :

+1

[Jason Whiddon]

Did anyone ask the Dish guys in the private session about future PQ enhancements? Is Dish happy with the PQ of their current mpeg4 stuff?

[vegassatellite]

Did anyone ask the Dish guys in the private session about future PQ enhancements? Is Dish happy with the PQ of their current mpeg4 stuff?

I think Charlie has a found a PQ that he likes that will support the number of channels he wants without running off a big chunk of subscribers. To the average viewer with an off the shelf HDTV 42" or smaller, the picture looks fine to them. For the people who have >42", and are concerned with their viewing that they have opted for nothing but the best, will probably never be satisfied with the picture of a system that has to use compression to put in channels. It's nice to think that there may be someday when a utopia of satellite bandwidth is achieved and PQ is truly phenomenal, but if that day comes, they will probably opt to fill the extra bandwidth with more channels as opposed to lower compression.

As TVs get bigger, so do scan lines. That's why people with large sets are going to see more PQ problems. The segment with really large HDTV sets is probably still small enough that Charlie isn't too concerned about over-compression. He's probably willing to lose a few viewers in order to be able to bring in the masses with more channels that are almost HD-Lite.

[richiephx]

Did anyone ask the Dish guys in the private session about future PQ enhancements? Is Dish happy with the PQ of their current mpeg4 stuff?

Great question...I think E* should survey all their HD subscribers if they really cared about picture quality. There is a big difference between being mediocre and being spectacular. I think E* falls somewhere closer to mediocre than spectacular.

[Jason Whiddon]

I personally hope they arent happy with the PQ and plan on improvements. Anything less than what D* gives is not enough IMHO. You cant truly be the HD leader without content, a great dvr AND PQ.

[kstuart]

I think Charlie has a found a PQ that he likes that will support the number of channels he wants without running off a big chunk of subscribers. To the average viewer with an off the shelf HDTV 42" or smaller, the picture looks fine to them. For the people who have >42", and are concerned with their viewing that they have opted for nothing but the best, will probably never be satisfied with the picture of a system that has to use compression to put in channels. It's nice to think that there may be someday when a utopia of satellite bandwidth is achieved and PQ is truly phenomenal, but if that day comes, they will probably opt to fill the extra bandwidth with more channels as opposed to lower compression.

As TVs get bigger, so do scan lines. That's why people with large sets are going to see more PQ problems. The segment with really large HDTV sets is probably still small enough that Charlie isn't too concerned about over-compression. He's probably willing to lose a few viewers in order to be able to bring in the masses with more channels that are almost HD-Lite.

Not only that, but...

MPEG2 and MPEG4 (and all HD digital video) are lossey systems. That means they throw out 99% of the data, and keep 1% of the data. Otherwise the entire CONUS 110 satellite would be only enough for one HD channel.

In order to throw out 99% of the data, the encoder makes a decision about what will not be perceived by a human eye .

Since the vast majority of HD TV viewers have 32", 37" or 42" sets, then the encoder needs to take that into account.

Thus, the bigger your TV set, the more flaws you will see in any MPEG2 or MPEG4 video. If your set is bigger than 52 inches, then frankly you are outside of the norm, and are not really within the specifications of the system.

In essence, by using an unusually large screen, you are blowing up (magnifying) the image in a way that is designed to show all the flaws - in the same way that a forensic investigator might magnify a photo to see a very small detail otherwise not visible.

PS I do find the old handful of MPEG2 HD channels to be a little less clear and bright than the MPEG4 HD channels, but that will eventually be resolved when they are converted.

[RandallA]

"PS I do find the old handful of MPEG2 HD channels to be a little less clear and bright than the MPEG4 HD channels, but that will eventually be resolved when they are converted."

Not only that but lots of macro blocking when watching fast action shows or sports. TNT and HD Theater do this a lot. I don't see the macro blocking on the MPEG4 channels.

[Jason Whiddon]

Well, regardless of tv size and whether Ill like compression, they need to realize D* has better HD PQ. I would hope theyd at least want to rival it. Maybe not, if so, then I know where I can go to get the best PQ on sat.

Other upcomer is FIOS, they roll out in more areas and get a better dvr, then Dish has more issues.

[kstuart]

Well, regardless of tv size and whether Ill like compression, they need to realize D* has better HD PQ. I would hope theyd at least want to rival it. Maybe not, if so, then I know where I can go to get the best PQ on sat.

Actually, if you read the relevant threads on AVS Forum, it is not true that D* HD PQ is better than E*.

It's amusing that evidently everyone's first inclination is to whine. It seems that even after the launching of satellites and bringing all these MPEG4 HD channels online, the D* fanboys on AVS whine about how some of the E* channels are nevertheless better in PQ. This leads one to quip:

" The grass on Sunrise Earth is always greener on the other satellite provider. "