I saw, and Ramy confirmed, D* is at full rezz HD on all the new stuff. When is E* going to go full HD? any thoughts?
ty
ty
When or is E* going to full rezz HD?
- Thread starter Madtown HD Junkie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 41
- Views 7K
D* won't be full rez when they start adding more HD, it seems they have 1 channel per transponder at the moment but when they start getting 2 and 3 channels per transponder, the quality starts to go down...thats why them SD upconverts they call HD looks good, reminds me of the picture quality I get on my 10' old-skool satellite that still works...!
Wont be known until and if it does happen. Who knows what the bit rate is, or will be in the future. With the bandwidth capacity they have now, it may stay High bit rate(more important) and full rezz
What I read here was that D* intends to place 4 HD channels per transponder using MPEG4. E* is presently transmitting 6 HD channels per transponder.
If these numbers are correct, then D* will have a clear HD quality advantage over E*. The average HD channel would get 50% more bandwidth from D*.
And using the latest MPEG4 encoders, D* may well be able to transmit full-resolution even at 4 channels per transponder, with compression artifacts being relatively minor.
If these numbers are correct, then D* will have a clear HD quality advantage over E*. The average HD channel would get 50% more bandwidth from D*.
And using the latest MPEG4 encoders, D* may well be able to transmit full-resolution even at 4 channels per transponder, with compression artifacts being relatively minor.
My guess is that E* will go full res hd when the mpeg4 encoders allow them to put 6 full rez hd channels on one TP. Right now E* does not have enough space to spread out the channels to 4 per TP. Even after the new sats launch i don't see them spreading them out.
Just MHO.
Just MHO.
D* is putting 4 HD channels per transponder because they only use QPSK as KA band satellites are much more prone to rain fade. E* can put 6 HD channels because they use 8PSK.
Answer: 2010+
Reason: the competition isnt any better and its not an issue for most people.
I say 2010 because thats when Bluray or HD-DVD (depending on who gives up) starts makng it into a whole lot of homes. They will see the difference and start making it an issue.
Sucks
Reason: the competition isnt any better and its not an issue for most people.
I say 2010 because thats when Bluray or HD-DVD (depending on who gives up) starts makng it into a whole lot of homes. They will see the difference and start making it an issue.
Sucks
What are you talking about? I love HD-Lite! :up:up
The more "almost-HD" channels the better! I love the fact that cable finally got on the HD-Lite bandwagon as well. It made my decision to switch to DISH that much easier.
Also, the HD OTA from NBC is still worse than what I get from DISH over the satellite from ABC, CBS, and FOX, so I am now conditioned to accepting an inferior picture as HD. Once I realized acceptance, I became a much happier person.
Ted
Proof? I haven't seen one TSReader analysis of anything off D10.
Also, with DVB S2 and the closer transponder frequency guard spacing it the useful bandwidth likely exceeds what E* has even it it's only QPSK.
I'm no communications expert on 8PSK vs QPSK, but in some brief readings on them, what I've seen is that 8PSK has demonstratedly better performance under poor weather conditions but only a very minor advantage in bit rate efficiency.
If this is true, then E* might have a very small advantage if they were both running 4 HD channels per transponder, but at 6 vs 4, D* is going to have a BIG bit rate advantage.
As a HD PQ fanatic, if I ever switch to D*, I will be hoping that they never switchover to 8PSK as being limited to 4 channels per transponder is great for quality.
If this is true, then E* might have a very small advantage if they were both running 4 HD channels per transponder, but at 6 vs 4, D* is going to have a BIG bit rate advantage.
As a HD PQ fanatic, if I ever switch to D*, I will be hoping that they never switchover to 8PSK as being limited to 4 channels per transponder is great for quality.
When it hits them in the pocketbook. Which could mean never.
Maybe, as Sammy pointed out, when Hi-DEF DVD gets rolling. But I don't think 90% of consumers will ever see enough difference to complain (plus the encoders will be a couple generations improved by then). (I'm also not sure either format will survive with the moronic format war they have going).
I think it'll take a 1080p projector pushing a 90+" screen to REALLy see the difference.
Don't forget that more bandwidth also means less recording space on your HDD. Some may prefer this compromise (though when the 2TB hdd's hit the shelves no one will care).
Like it or not, the average high def viewer would rather have more channels at HD-lite than fewer channels at full rez/high bitrate.
This is no surprise considering that most current viewers have 42" or smaller 768p LCD's at a 10 ft. or greater viewing distance.
Nielsen Study: HD Owners Want More HD
That study complete contradicts the ratings. People give props to Discovery, HBO, CBS, ESPN and Fox yet give ratings to HDNet and HDNet movies.
This is no surprise considering that most current viewers have 42" or smaller 768p LCD's at a 10 ft. or greater viewing distance.
Nielsen Study: HD Owners Want More HD
That study complete contradicts the ratings. People give props to Discovery, HBO, CBS, ESPN and Fox yet give ratings to HDNet and HDNet movies.
when they figure out how to get 6 gallons of water into a 5 gallon bucket.
all kidding aside. E* is going to launch moe birds. Hopewfully this will allow higher resolution..Patience
This surprises me. QPSK requires less power to achieve the same bit error rate as 8PSK. I would expect QPSK to work better in poor weather conditions because of this.
