HD Compression
- Thread starter johndl123
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4
- Views 3K
I believe D* has moved (or is at least moving more rapidly) to exclusively MPEG-4. E* is still using a combination of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4. PQ/sharpness are more a function of the resolution and bitrates. The -4 encoding allows more of both, and ultimately better PQ within the available or allocated bandwidth. But the real question is are either or both providers moving for more channels or better PQ in the available channels, i.e., quantity vs. quality. To some extent we can have both with -4, but it seems right now the push is to more channels. One would hope some of the additional BW would be allocated for better PQ on the existing channels as well!
In my experience, OTA is the best HD PQ of the broadcast programming. My local PBS channel for instance can b'cast 4 subchannels and still have PQ on their HD sub that beats anything from E* all the time (that the programming is itself HD). Others have reported lesser PQ with OTA HD, so YMMV.
Welcome, BTW...!
In my experience, OTA is the best HD PQ of the broadcast programming. My local PBS channel for instance can b'cast 4 subchannels and still have PQ on their HD sub that beats anything from E* all the time (that the programming is itself HD). Others have reported lesser PQ with OTA HD, so YMMV.
Welcome, BTW...!
For my locals, it is very close in quality. On well setup channels, like WRAL (CBS) and WRAZ (FOX), I struggle to tell the difference. For WNCN, which struggles mightily with PQ and audio sync OTA, the MPEG4 encoding exaggerates the flaws.
Ted
Ted
I can't get OTA signals, but my local Comcast system is so far only running two HD channels per carrier (I don't know how the bandwidth of a 256QAM carrier compares to a Dish transponder though) and I've never seen any flaws in the picture.
