x2 absolutely,my wife thinks I'm taking it abit too seriously,well heck yeah!:up
lately to me the pic looks better especially on espnews hd. travel looks solid too.
The size on the external drive of programs from the 7 MPEG2-HD channels will be greater than those of the MPEG4-HD channels, because of the different technology. Make sure you are not "comparing apples and oranges".I've got some high quality, high bitrate recordings (the Blue Man Group concert) that clocked in at 13Mbps (you can figure this out if you hook up an external hard drive) and it looks great. Then comes along BSG at a miserable 4Mbps.
I noticed what appeared to be "jpeg" artifact on the non moving Dhd logo.
I'm just not sold on E* HD PQ being the same! Maybe because I spent 1 month watching only E* HD, and Finally noticed the flaws. I've noticed things on E* I've never thought of in the years of HD with D* ,Somethings going on!-
For some of you guys, if your ice cream falls off your ice cream cone, It's Dish Network's Fault !!...
I've got some high quality, high bitrate recordings (the Blue Man Group concert) that clocked in at 13Mbps (you can figure this out if you hook up an external hard drive) and it looks great. Then comes along BSG at a miserable 4Mbps. That sucks as does a lot of other "HD" programming.
Ah, very good point. I forgot about that. Indeed, the Blue Man Group concert I referred to is from HDNET which I believe is an MPEG2 channel. For whatever reason though, it looks much better than most other HD I watch (except OTA) from Dish. Although maybe it just compresses better because there's so much black in it...who knows.The size on the external drive of programs from the 7 MPEG2-HD channels will be greater than those of the MPEG4-HD channels, because of the different technology. Make sure you are not "comparing apples and oranges".
I don't buy that. A movie with an average bitrate of 5Mbps is most likely going to look better than one with 10Mbps. Of course, the type of movie matters (how much movement there is for example) but the same movie will definitely look better with a higher bitrate. For specific comparisons, the real time bitrate is important, but I still believe the generalization that a higher bitrate means a better picture.You can't take the number of bits and divide by the time to get the bit rate. You have to analyze it in real time. The bit rates are high where they need to be and low where it doesn't make a difference.
![]()
For some of you guys, if your ice cream falls off your ice cream cone, It's Dish Network's Fault !!
No matter how low you starve a channel of bitrate, it won't effect a "non moving" object. Bitrate is only needed for the CHANGES in the image.
A Still image on Discovery-HD only need 1.5 megabytes ONCE, and thereafter bitrate can be ZERO, and it will look perfect. The bitrate you see on "slate" channels is the audio music...
61.5 , thats why I called a Tech to come out. He said eveything was fine! He even saw everything I described first hand. $30 for nothing!
...... About the PQ, maybe the programs I am watching are getting to borrowed more bitrates from the other channels you guys are watching![]()