CinemaxHD MPEG4

[richiephx]

I rarely watched anything on Cinemax. Since MaxHD was added last month, I'm liking watching it more and more. I think the HD picture quality has surpassed StarzHD and HBO and Sho, IMO. The Star Wars movies today were exceptionally good and in OAR. I'm hopin that it will continue to get better and better as E* keeps improving it's MPEG4 equipment. Keep up the good work E* :clap

 

[RandallA]

I noticed the same thing last night. The picture quality on those Star Wars movies was really good. A lot better than HBO, Showtime and Starz.

 

[whatchel1]

Little bit hard to believe

It's a little hard to believe that MAXHD would have a better PQ than HBOHD. Since HBO is 1920 X 1080 whereas MAX is 1440 X 1080.

 

[lakebum431]

There is more to picture quality than just resolution. You also have to look at bit rate and encoding.

 

[whatchel1]

Give

Then give us the bit rates. HBO HD is an 1920 x 1080 MPEG 2 and MAX HD is 1440 x 1080 MPEG 4. The only variable left would be Bit rates of the 2. Someone with a stream analyzer let us know how the 2 compare.

 

[primetimeguy]

The two bit rates won't be comparable since one is MPEG2 and the other MPEG4. The MPEG4 bit rate will be much lower.

 

[lakebum431]

The two bit rates won't be comparable since one is MPEG2 and the other MPEG4. The MPEG4 bit rate will be much lower.

Exactly. A MPEG 2 stream needs a much higher bit rate to achieve the same quality of a MPEG 4 stream.

 

[whatchel1]

Correct

The two bit rates won't be comparable since one is MPEG2 and the other MPEG4. The MPEG4 bit rate will be much lower.

In some ways true. If they are using 12 on the MPEG 2 then the rate that is roughly equivalent will be approximately 9 for MPEG 4. Also if they are able to use a sliding rate that advance samples the content it will slide up & down with the content as more bits are needed for more info. It also will make a difference in what encoder system that is being used. The newer units can do the same pq w/ less than the older units. So this is why going into a bit rate comparison would be very hard. So back to which shows the better resolution as the comparator or just gonna have to used the "calibrated eyeball method". Using an acronym YMMV. It sure would be nice to have some way to compare. 1 last thing is it possible for both HBO & MAX to ask E* to give them more on big "events" like these? If this is true then come 6-1 S.W. may look just as good on HBO as it did on MAX. Boy I sure hope so I had to cancel the record of all the series due to the fact I didn't have enuff HDD space.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I just spent about 30 minutes performing direct scene by scene comparisons between recordings of "Return of the Jedi" taken from HBO and Cinemax HD. While they are very close in overall quality, the HBO recording is better.

In well-lit scenes, they are very, very close. In dark scenes the HBO recording is sharper and has fewer compression artifacts. This held true in all four dark scene comparisons.

The HBO recording is sharper in all scenes, but it is a bit more obvious in some than others.

Haven't compared any of the other movies.

I was hoping to replace my recordings of "TESB" and "RotJ" with the Cinemax recordings, to save space. But after this comparison, I hate to ditch the HBO recordings.

 

[nazz]

Interesting observations. I'll have to compare the two on my setup. I do think that they've come a long way with MPEG 4 and hope that they still keep making it better.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Later on, I did find a screen where the compression artifacts were a bit more tolerable from the Cinemax program. It was where Luke was talking to Leia about her being his sister. It had a purple backlight behind him. On the HBO recording that was very busy with a kind of macro pixelization with mosquito noise. On Cinemax it was less noisy but with some contouring. It was less distracting on Cinemax.

However it was still sharper / better detail on the HBO recording.

Can't do anymore comparisons as I needed the space and deleted the Cinemax recording.

 

[DAVEGTESTR]

Cinemax HD / Natl. Geo droputs

Cinemax-HD looks good. However the 129 satellite reception is so bad.
Chicago HD is on 129, and is fine. I did not sign a contract with DISH, so they could be history if 129 reception is this bad. 5-6 1-2 minute dropouts in just 45 minutes, I had not seen it this before. Clear sky too. Wife frustrated. May go Comcast triple play to get Comcast Sportnet HD. DISH does have by far the best DVR.

 

[gadgtfreek]

Call dish or re-peak the Dish yourself. 129 comes in fine if the dish is adjusted right.

 

[lakebum431]

Yeah, what are your signal levels on 129? I have repeaked my Dish 1000 and haven't had any 129 problems since.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

You shouldn't have any problems getting a decent signal on 129 from the Chicago area.

 

[kstuart]

Both MPEG2 and MPEG4 are lossey. MPEG4 is more advanced, and thus provides better PQ for less disk space and bitrate.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Both MPEG2 and MPEG4 are lossey. MPEG4 is more advanced, and thus provides better PQ for less disk space and bitrate.

This is true. But doesn't necessary mean that you will get better PQ from an MPEG4 channel.

Let's say MPEG4 is twice as efficient as MPEG2. So that a MPEG4 channel would look just as good with 5.5 Mbs of bandwidth as a MPEG2 channel with 11 Mbs. And thus it would have better PQ with just 6 Mbs than the MPEG2 w/11 Mbs.

So there is a lot of potential for MPEG4 HD to have better PQ.

However it is only potential. For if the provider takes a HD channel getting 12 Mbs under MPEG2 and converts it to a 5 Mbs MPEG4 channel, then the PQ will deteriorate under MPEG4.

I would LOVE to see E* convert their MPEG2 channels to MPEG4 and give them about a 10%-15% boost in "effective bandwidth". E* would realize significant bandwidth savings and be able to add many new channels, while simultaneously improving PQ.

But I wouldn't bet money on them doing it.

 

[mike123abc]

At 6 programs in MPEG4, Dish should be getting about 6.5 mbit/sec average. Of course they are probably muxing and allowing bits to be shared amonst the channels as needed. A lot of action on all 6 would be worst case.

MPEG-4 has the advantage of having less distracting artifacts when bit starved. The perceived improvment may just be fewer distractions even if overall sharpness is reduced.

 

[whatchel1]

No problem

Recently was able to watch new encoders from 2 co's. They were able to produce excellent pq at 6 MB for MPEG 2. So using that amount of bandwidth in MPEG 4 will have a better pq than the MPEG 2. The units that E* is using and D* will be using soon ( they are dumping the units that they have been using up to now) are going to make a big diff when the larger # of HD nets start showing up later this year.