Dish Networks HD is True HD?

[Jim S.]

Thats not a fair comparison at all!.... OTA can have an extremely high data rate, 5 to 10 times greater than data over internet or via satellite!

Uh, the satellite transmission can have an extremely high data rate too, if the provider chooses to. Not that it should need as much as OTA in the first place though, since Dish uses MPEG4 and OTA uses MPEG2.

(If Dish would switch to h.265, maybe they could provide us all the channels they do now without making them look like crap...)

 

[AZ.]

Uh, the satellite transmission can have an extremely high data rate too, if the provider chooses to. Not that it should need as much as OTA in the first place though, since Dish uses MPEG4 and OTA uses MPEG2.

(If Dish would switch to h.265, maybe they could provide us all the channels they do now without making them look like crap...)

Again....PLEASE dont compare OTA to satellite transmissions......Its a flippen joke to compare....end of story!

 

[goaliebob99]

Again....PLEASE dont compare OTA to satellite transmissions......Its a flippen joke to compare....end of story!

Thats not a fair comparison at all!.... OTA can have an extremely high data rate, 5 to 10 times greater than data over internet or via satellite!

Actually, it is a valid comparison.. I have seen many stations run 8-14 megs (based upon content) over their OTA feeds with some null built in. If you add subchannels, I have seen it lower, and typically that is the case. Usually, a Mpeg 4 feed transcoded from Mpeg 2 will run 6-12 megs depending upon content, if your passing along what the provider gives and no bit shaping and downgrading of the video quality. Dish does bit shape the 1080 feeds and does not offer them at full resolution but instead at 1440.

This is why you see so many complaints with Dish versus DirecTV who just transcodes what the station sends and multiplexes upon content.

 

[goaliebob99]

IMHO the PQ is perfectly acceptable. The main reason I chose DISH over DTV is the larger number of locals offered by DISH in my area. I have also noticed far fewer signal losses due to the weather with DISH. I am a happy camper, indeed.

His is because Dish still uses KU and DirecTV uses KA in many areas. KA has a higher dropout rate with rain.

 

[AZ.]

Actually, it is a valid comparison.. I have seen many stations run 8-14 megs (based upon content) over their OTA feeds with some null built in. If you add subchannels, I have seen it lower, and typically that is the case. Usually, a Mpeg 4 feed transcoded from Mpeg 2 will run 6-12 megs depending upon content, if your passing along what the provider gives and no bit shaping and downgrading of the video quality. Dish does bit shape the 1080 feeds and does not offer them at full resolution but instead at 1440.

This is why you see so many complaints with Dish versus DirecTV who just transcodes what the station sends and multiplexes upon content.

So you will compare a compressed signal via satellite, and compare it to a sub channel that has 3 or 4 other carriers????
You can compare cars with that same mentality I guess.....Hands down OTA will blow the doors or any compressed satellite feed from dish or direct..
I watched a local channel at 14 meg side by side with dish on identical tvs......Sorry....With out a doubt with glasses or not 3 feet away or 20 feet away.....NOT EVEN CLOSE!

 

[inazsully]

What's the skinny with h.265? Why is it better and why is it not used?

 

[Jhon69]

I want them to improve PQ. I assume that the vast majority of members here, especially members here, share that sentiment. From a marketing standpoint I'm also sure that we, as enthusiasts, are in the minority of Dish customers. The majority are quite satisfied and oblivious to the remarkable PQ their 2K or 4K could deliver. Slightly compressed 1080P PQ would be stunning if it were made available. Might actually make it hard to sell 4K sets.

It is stunning but it's only available on the cable providers,4K looks that much better when the HDMI input is 1080p on the cable channels..

Satellite providers are 1080p or 4K on PPV.

 

[goaliebob99]

So you will compare a compressed signal via satellite, and compare it to a sub channel that has 3 or 4 other carriers????
You can compare cars with that same mentality I guess.....Hands down OTA will blow the doors or any compressed satellite feed from dish or direct.
I watched a local channel at 14 meg side by side with dish on identical TVs......Sorry....With out a doubt with glasses or not 3 feet away or 20 feet away.....NOT EVEN CLOSE!

You realize that the channel is compressed even over OTA. MPEG2 is a compression method and is not lossless. Just like MPEG4. Your hands down moment is going to turn into a come to Jesus moment. You know why? DirecTV does NOT compress local channels the way you think they do. They pass along the same quality that the OTA provider gives them. All they do is just transcode it from MP2 to MP4 at the same quality the provider gives them. It's an identical picture! While I can't speak for Dish as I am sure they do compress the hell out of the feeds, it is a very real possibility that a compressed satellite signal looks just as good as a compressed OTA signal. OTA is not uncompressed, if it was the video would be at 1.2 Gbps versus 19.2 megs or less that each broadcast frequency can handle at 8vsb. What your posts really show is that you know nothing about compression and how it all works.

 

[Jim S.]

What's the skinny with h.265? Why is it better and why is it not used?

It's better because the compression ratio is insane. It's not used more because it's too new.

 

[Hall]

What's the skinny with h.265? Why is it better and why is it not used?

It's a relatively new codec that simply improves upon previous generation codecs. It's likely not used for a variety of reasons at this point: maturity/stability, licence cost, hardware support, etc.