Confusing terminology

[swampman]

Forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to the technical side of HD. But I have a question. My understanding is that Directv(and to a lesser extreme Dishnetwork) doesnt provide a true full blown HD picture...but what is called HD lite. So if that is the case, how would I benefit from mpeg4 and the added cost of equipment? HD lite/mpeg4? Sounds a bit contradicting. Someone set me straight on this please.

 

[atp1313]

uh oh, where's Vurbano ?!?

 

[harshness]

MPEG4 versus MPEG2 doesn't really make any difference. Either can be pushed beyond the point where they can reproduce a quality picture. The advantage of using an MPEG4 receiver is that most of the HD programming isn't available to MPEG2 receivers.

There aren't any philosophical choices to be made; you either get the programming or you don't.

 

[swampman]

.MPEG4 versus MPEG2 doesn't really make any difference. Either can be pushed beyond the point where they can reproduce a quality picture. The advantage of using an MPEG4 receiver is that most of the HD programming isn't available to MPEG2 receivers

OK either I didnt understand what you said, or you may have missed my point.

 

[davidrumm]

The reason to change is that the older receivers cannot receive the new satellites. Mpeg4 is a better compression scheme and so allows Directv to better use its satellites to provide more channels. Thus while changing equipment for the new satellites, they added the ability to do both Mpeg2 and Mpeg4. The Mpeg4 vs Mpeg2 is due to this compression, not anything else.
The HD Lite is a totally different issue. So far it is only on the Mpeg2 as best as we can tell. Most people state they cannot tell a difference between the OTA locals and the Mpeg4 locals on Directv. We really won't know for sure on Mpeg4 until they start adding the HD coming next month. This will allow us to see what kind of quality we are getting.

 

[harshness]

OK either I didnt understand what you said, or you may have missed my point.

Your question was how you would benefit from MPEG4 and the added cost of equipment and I answered that question. Were you looking for some sort of assurance that DIRECTV isn't going to continue to compromise their PQ in the future?

 

[swampman]

Your question was how you would benefit from MPEG4

Actually it was how could I benefit from mpeg4 AND the broadcasting of HD lite material simultaniously.

Were you looking for some sort of assurance that DIRECTV isn't going to continue to compromise their PQ in the future?

No. I guess I'm not making myself clear. Lets try this another way. With the coming of mpeg4, does that mean there will be no more HD lite? Mpeg4 and HD lite is sorta like a Corvette with a 4 cyl engine...not getting the most benefit. But I guess that just me. I appologize to all for the confusing topic.

 

[atp1313]

No. I guess I'm not making myself clear. Lets try this another way. With the coming of mpeg4, does that mean there will be no more HD lite? Mpeg4 and HD lite is sorta like a Corvette with a 4 cyl engine...not getting the most benefit. But I guess that just me. I appologize to all for the confusing topic.

Bottomline answer: we don't know for certain. once the new HD channels light up in the next few weeks, we can take a closer look. Obviously D* is not going to add the following statement to their advertising campaign: "Switch to D* and get the best HD Lite possible now with our new MPEG4 encoding." As davidrumm stated a few posts ago, the "hope" is that with the new MPEG4 compression in place, the HD Lite era "might" come to an end. With those who get HDLIL on MPEG4 boxes, they claim to see no difference in MPEG4 and OTA. OTA is not generally HD Lite. Though some OTA channels that run subchannels do appear to be HDLite just because they are bit-starved.

I hope this answers your question(s).

 

[swampman]

With those who get HDLIL on MPEG4 boxes, they claim to see no difference in MPEG4 and OTA. OTA is not generally HD Lite.

I've noticed that myself. My OTA HD locals actually have higher quality than my HD package channels(with the possible exception of Discovery HD Theater).

I hope this answers your question(s). :

Absolutely. I now have a better understanding of how it all works.

 

[atp1313]

glad we could help...

 

[Ronnie-]

Forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to the technical side of HD. But I have a question. My understanding is that Directv(and to a lesser extreme Dishnetwork) doesnt provide a true full blown HD picture...but what is called HD lite. So if that is the case, how would I benefit from mpeg4 and the added cost of equipment? HD lite/mpeg4? Sounds a bit contradicting. Someone set me straight on this please.

Yes Directv, dish and nearly every cable company cut the bit rate and reduce the resolution on the signal. Whether or not the reduced resolution has any effect on the PQ that you get is open to debate and is dependant on a number of factors.
The main thing that they are doing that hurts PQ for most is the reduced bit rate, and the coming of MPEG 4 should help this problem. While they may not actually raise the bit rate of the transmission, MPEG 4 is much more effieceint than mpeg 2 and a higher quality feed should result all else being equal. Notice i said may not raise the bit rate, they could very well raise it depending on the amount of bandwidth they have available once all of the new channels come on line.