Can anyone recommend a good site (outside of wiki) to understand why MPG4 is better now than MPG2? I always heard MPG4 was worse than 2 but it sounds like they've improved it.
SatelliteGuys.US DishNetwork Uplink Activity Discussion - Week Ending 08/04/2007
- Thread starter digiblur
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 72
- Views 11K
Can anyone recommend a good site (outside of wiki) to understand why MPG4 is better now than MPG2? I always heard MPG4 was worse than 2 but it sounds like they've improved it.
I did some searching but could not find much. I know mpeg4 is a more efficient way to compress so that you can fit more into 1.
I was also under the impression the mpeg4 offered better picture quality, but maybe thats because they can give it just as much bitrate as the starved mpeg2 and its looks better because it needs less.
I heard that MPEG-4 was more intelligent about determining the static (unchanged) areas of the picture, and thus doesn't allocate bits to update those areas. Along with a somewhat better compression algorithm.
Its not that MPEG4 was worse than MPEG2, it was just that in order to gain more efficiency from MPEG4, you needed a computer with more horsepower. The MPEG4 algorithms are better, but the first encoders couldn't really cut it and better PQ and efficiency were not realized.
Later new encoders (or upgrades to the existing ones) got things churning. So using MPEG4 became better.
At least that's my best guess.
Later new encoders (or upgrades to the existing ones) got things churning. So using MPEG4 became better.
At least that's my best guess.
mpeg2 has been a long standing standard.. which means hardware decoders are cheep (relatively) and most of the kinks have been worked out..
mpeg4 is a working standard with much more growth posibilities (from what I gather).. and with additional improvements the compression gets better and requires less bandwidth to compress the same data.. however costs remain high because the technologies is always in flux as it's improving.. there have been kinks in some of the older formats of mpeg4 that cause errors on display.. but they get fixed just like any other error.. only problem onces it's coded in hardware that's not as easy to fix..
mpeg4 is a working standard with much more growth posibilities (from what I gather).. and with additional improvements the compression gets better and requires less bandwidth to compress the same data.. however costs remain high because the technologies is always in flux as it's improving.. there have been kinks in some of the older formats of mpeg4 that cause errors on display.. but they get fixed just like any other error.. only problem onces it's coded in hardware that's not as easy to fix..
61.5 has mirrors of hd content that 129 has. Usually you get one or the other depending on your location. Only way to get both is to add a second dish.
Thanks. This is why this website is the best. Ask a question and get an answer in minutes!!!
Almost forgot, you can us this to see whats different on 61.5 vs 129 programming wise.
The Echostar Knowledge Base on DBSTalk
The Echostar Knowledge Base on DBSTalk
Hey digiblur:
(Just so I know) How does programming get from HBO(for example) to Dish. I understand your uplink reports are what they are sending up to the sats to send back to us, in turn some is for us to see and some is not.
(Just so I know) How does programming get from HBO(for example) to Dish. I understand your uplink reports are what they are sending up to the sats to send back to us, in turn some is for us to see and some is not.
Well, usually its one of two ways, not sure with HBO, but for example.
HBO Uplinks its suite of channels to a satellite (for all cable providers, dish, directv etc), the providers use a dish to receive the HBO suite, then each provider compresses and encrypts the HBO signal, reuplinks it (in the case of dish/directv), or sends it over fiber/coax, to your home.
OR, Cable providers have a fiberoptic link to an HBO "distrobution" facility, in which the suite of channels is sent over fiber, then uplinked to a dish/direct satellite (or broadcast over cable lines)
I do beleive that HBO goes route 1 however, but thats the jist of it for all the channels!
HBO Uplinks its suite of channels to a satellite (for all cable providers, dish, directv etc), the providers use a dish to receive the HBO suite, then each provider compresses and encrypts the HBO signal, reuplinks it (in the case of dish/directv), or sends it over fiber/coax, to your home.
OR, Cable providers have a fiberoptic link to an HBO "distrobution" facility, in which the suite of channels is sent over fiber, then uplinked to a dish/direct satellite (or broadcast over cable lines)
I do beleive that HBO goes route 1 however, but thats the jist of it for all the channels!
Thanks, pretty neat. Its amazing how much we rely on satellites ( and how reliable they are). I guess thats why I always see a HUGE sat dish at comcasts main office in my local area.
Yep... they either get them via C-Band or fiber.
Go dig around Lyngsat on the C-Band fleet at 121W and greater, you'll see.
Those other channels could also be warmups for History and Discovery come the First of September.
Back when I had cable, there was a period where there was noticable pixelation on HBO. I called the cable co. and was told that there was a "satellite reception problem". It was at that point that I figured I may as well switch to a satellite provider to cut out the middle man....
I agree. If I ever lose signal from rain fade (which is very rare) it usually lasts 2-10 minutes and then is back. At least I know what the problem is. Back when I had cable about once every other month I would turn on the tv and there would be no signal. I would call the cable company and they would say that service is down and it would be back shortly. Most of the time it would take a couple of hours for service to return.
In the year that I have had satellite I can safely say that I have had many, many less service interuptions than over the same length of time with cable.
