I am just curious. Once the HD-LIL are all up, and then when the other new satellites are up and running (is it 10 and 11?), what can we realistically expect as far as picture quality? (number of channels, resolution, bit rates)
Any experts on calculating bandwidth?
- Thread starter cal87
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 10
- Views 2K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
- Status
dragon002 said:
I agree. The only time I'm even remotely interested in that stuff is if the picture is not good-then, of course, I want to know why so I can fix it, if possible. If it looks good to me, I just sit down and watch.
dragon002 said:
I can NOT enjoy a TV show unless I check the bit rate first. I have to be 100% sure I am getting the MAX bits I can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JK
I think cal87 asks a reasonable question - enquiring minds want to know!
The 19.4meg max. bitrate in a 6MHz channel allocation is something that the content producers can manage to their advantage. Whereas a true HD signal consumes that whole capacity, there are many lower-rez options available to the content providers that can be further managed by the carriers. High-action HD content will need the full channel capacity to look its best. Other content can look nearly as good at lower rates while allowing additional programming in the same allocation. The point is, the guy at the switch will always want to compromise quality for quantity, regardless of the compression techniques employed, when it's more economically beneficial for him to do so.
The current technology, number of available transponders, etc. are only part of the equation. Market demand may have a larger impact on how the available technology is utilized. If consumers demand more HD content at higher quality and are willing to pay the $$ to support that demand, then we might see a migration to more higher quality content. Otherwise the supply side will likely favor more channels at lower quality that will provide more commercial revenue and largest ROI. Where that will all balance out is the real question....
It's like I feel when I'm driving my car - I don't have to know what's happening under the hood to get where I'm headed, and most of the time I don't care. But the gear-head in me occassionally wants to know how that exhaust-induced dose of steriods known as turbo charging is managed most efficiently to get me the performance I crave...
The 19.4meg max. bitrate in a 6MHz channel allocation is something that the content producers can manage to their advantage. Whereas a true HD signal consumes that whole capacity, there are many lower-rez options available to the content providers that can be further managed by the carriers. High-action HD content will need the full channel capacity to look its best. Other content can look nearly as good at lower rates while allowing additional programming in the same allocation. The point is, the guy at the switch will always want to compromise quality for quantity, regardless of the compression techniques employed, when it's more economically beneficial for him to do so.
The current technology, number of available transponders, etc. are only part of the equation. Market demand may have a larger impact on how the available technology is utilized. If consumers demand more HD content at higher quality and are willing to pay the $$ to support that demand, then we might see a migration to more higher quality content. Otherwise the supply side will likely favor more channels at lower quality that will provide more commercial revenue and largest ROI. Where that will all balance out is the real question....
It's like I feel when I'm driving my car - I don't have to know what's happening under the hood to get where I'm headed, and most of the time I don't care. But the gear-head in me occassionally wants to know how that exhaust-induced dose of steriods known as turbo charging is managed most efficiently to get me the performance I crave...
I am just wondering realistically what we can expect to see. We've all seen the numbers - 1500 locals, 150 HD. I don't think there are that many DMA's or national HD channels that will actually be broadcast. So can we expect to see high quality MPEG-4 broadcasts towards the end of the year and into 2007? Is it going to be any better than we are seeing now?
Just assuming that all 210 current DMAs up'd only their big 4: 210x4=840
What about larger markets, DirecTV may be holding the remaining 660 capacity just in case they need to up HD independents at some point. AND what about needed backups in case of failed transponders?
What about larger markets, DirecTV may be holding the remaining 660 capacity just in case they need to up HD independents at some point. AND what about needed backups in case of failed transponders?
Last edited:
I know cable companies that have atleast a 900mhz bandwidth system like to fit 10 digitally compressed channels into a 6 mhz bandwidth channel. 6 mhz = 1 analog channel. Now channel 2 is typically 55.250 mhz , anything below channel 2 would be considered reverse stream . between channels 4-5 is an exception, it is 10 mhz of bandwidth not 6. Digital compression is really taking the 6 mhz and chopping the amplitude and frequency modulation to what would be considered much less than 6 mhz , so now zero`s and ones are in motion and no more sine waves. that is how they woud fit 10 into one, so the ratio would be 10:1. As far as Mpeg 2 to Mpeg4 the ratio would definatley double.
- Status
