HD Picture Quality

[whatchel1]

Lossy has to do with

Please explain what the hell is LOSSY mpeg?

Lossy has to do with the fact that it is MPEG. These standard take the full picture and "throw away" certain portions of the signal by dropping I or P frames that "don't" need to be repeated due to the fact that they can just reuse the previous frame. They only put out the scene changes not the full picture every frame. There was to start with MPEG, next came MPEG 2 (which is what we use for OTA) and now MPEG 4 which is what is being used for satellite transmission. They are working on even more MPEG schemes for the future even now. BTW MPEG stands for Moving Picture Experts Group. Here's a wiki link on MPEG that gives some of the standards. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG"]Moving Picture Experts Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mpeg.svg" class="image"><img alt="Mpeg.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Mpeg.svg/326px-Mpeg.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/5b/Mpeg.svg/326px-Mpeg.svg.png[/ame] This doesn't give the details of what is" Lost" to do the compression but you can see that we have gone to different standards over time using MPEG.

 

[redelephants]

I spent some time tonight about 1 foot away from my 57" DLP set and some recordings I have on my 622. It is connected via HDMI.

I checked FoxNewsHD live, and it was pretty bad. Obviously that channel is not a high priority for quality in Dish's mind.
I checked an episode of Fringe that was recorded Over the Air from our local Fox channel. Not a great show to check with since the moving camera, and constant focus changes pervade the show, but it really had excellent detail, in particular the older cast member.
I checked a recording of Gran Torino that was recorded off of Cinemax yesterday. Not bad at all. Nearly as good as Fringe, but there was some softness there and lack of the fine detail that could be seen on the OTA recording.
I then checked the Ultimate Fighter recording from SpikeHD. Really really bad. This was their 3 hour final night event, and the lack of detail was disappointing. From 10 feet back it didn't look too bad. But if it's gonna be HD, it needs to be better.

I'll watch it a bit more closely and make sure I give dish feedback on this kind of stuff. If no one complains to them directly, they'll never know people expect more.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person seeing these problems. I actually watched portions of that Gran Torino yesterday as well and didn't seem to be all that bad in quality. However I did notice a little softness but don't remember if that could be how it was when I watched on DVD. I also viewed a little of Max Payne on cinemax yesterday and it also looked pretty good. I only noticed the little macroblocking when paning to a light scene from a dark scene. I watched a d/l of a "true" HD clip via Xbox 360 last night and it looked superb, so obvisously not my set. What is strange is how the macroblocking/mosquito noise is extremely visible during red backgrounds especially in motion. What did you notice in the Live Fox News program that was really bad? Was it comparable to my screenshot I posted? We must pay as Dish HD subscribers to have HD service, only to receive subpar HD. I must say that I am not very optimistic to see any improvements when you don't have everyone seeing what some of us are seeing. If it is an entire Dish problem then why you reckon not everyone is seeing the problem? I am not an expert when it comes to broadcast signals, but if we are getting the same content of the same satellites then wouldn't you see the problems everywhere? I guess I will have to record some more screenshots to send to Dish Quality but I am afraid the reply will be we need to send someone out to your house, when that has been done time and time again.

 

[BuddyBoy]

Lossy has to do with the fact that it is MPEG. These standard take the full picture and "throw away" certain portions of the signal by dropping I or P frames that "don't" need to be repeated due to the fact that they can just reuse the previous frame. They only put out the scene changes not the full picture every frame.

You've completely overlooked (or more likely just didn't know) about the DCT-based compression that occurs within a frame, just like in JPEG still-picture compression.

 

[whatchel1]

Not sure how you figure this

You've completely overlooked (or more likely just didn't know) about the DCT-based compression that occurs within a frame, just like in JPEG still-picture compression.

Since we aren't talking about Data compression of still images not sure how JPEG compression figures into a MPEG 4 scheme. You are going to have to explain that one. Since as far as I know MPEG 4 doesn't do that type of compression.

 

[MikeD-C05]

Lossy has to do with the fact that it is MPEG. These standard take the full picture and "throw away" certain portions of the signal by dropping I or P frames that "don't" need to be repeated due to the fact that they can just reuse the previous frame. They only put out the scene changes not the full picture every frame. There was to start with MPEG, next came MPEG 2 (which is what we use for OTA) and now MPEG 4 which is what is being used for satellite transmission. They are working on even more MPEG schemes for the future even now. BTW MPEG stands for Moving Picture Experts Group. Here's a wiki link on MPEG that gives some of the standards. Moving Picture Experts Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This doesn't give the details of what is" Lost" to do the compression but you can see that we have gone to different standards over time using MPEG.

Thanks, I will read up on it.

 

[TigerpounceTN]

Since we aren't talking about Data compression of still images not sure how JPEG compression figures into a MPEG 4 scheme. You are going to have to explain that one. Since as far as I know MPEG 4 doesn't do that type of compression.

Video is just a series of still images... You can also use a form of JPEG for video and MPEG for just one frame if you really want.

 

[whatchel1]

not used here

Video is just a series of still images... You can also use a form of JPEG for video and MPEG for just one frame if you really want.

The whole reason for MPEG 4 is to not have is to not have to show every frame individually put o only show new I frame then P frames as needed. Then next new frame is to added as needed for the next move in the video. JPEG data compression isn't used in MPEG 4 video.

 

[redelephants]

The whole reason for MPEG 4 is to not have is to not have to show every frame individually put o only show new I frame then P frames as needed. Then next new frame is to added as needed for the next move in the video. JPEG data compression isn't used in MPEG 4 video.

I don't think he was stating that JPEG was used in MPEG 4 video. I believe he was refrencing that video is a compilation of still images and in MPEG (blocks). They are all from the same "compression" family.

 

[whatchel1]

Why didn't he say

I don't think he was stating that JPEG was used in MPEG 4 video. I believe he was refrencing that video is a compilation of still images and in MPEG (blocks). They are all from the same "compression" family.

If that is what he meant he should've said it. BTW the compression between the 2 are different. My understanding is that JPEG just compresses the data and restores it where as MPEG 4 reduces the number of I & p frames and only restores what is needed to make an adequate moving image so that it looks OK while in motion. It isn't going to "worry" about the individual frames as long as the over all image during movement is reasonable. So when you freeze frame an image you are not looking at the total image but just what is needed to complete the image as moving.

 

[TigerpounceTN]

The whole reason for MPEG 4 is to not have is to not have to show every frame individually put o only show new I frame then P frames as needed. Then next new frame is to added as needed for the next move in the video. JPEG data compression isn't used in MPEG 4 video.

They are both used for image compression though. I never said that JPEG compression was used in MPEG4 video since I'm not even sure what that means. I was saying that you could use a version of JPEG for video if you wanted to. Such a codec does exist. They do share certain things in common, but MPEG is designed for more than one picture in succession, hence the ability to only encode the difference and reference other frames/pictures and other optimizations.

 

[redelephants]

If that is what he meant he should've said it. BTW the compression between the 2 are different. My understanding is that JPEG just compresses the data and restores it where as MPEG 4 reduces the number of I & p frames and only restores what is needed to make an adequate moving image so that it looks OK while in motion. It isn't going to "worry" about the individual frames as long as the over all image during movement is reasonable. So when you freeze frame an image you are not looking at the total image but just what is needed to complete the image as moving.

Obvisouly with JPEG still image compression there are no frames to reduce, it's a still image.

 

[bgothard72]

This discussion has gotten way over my head. Whew!

 

[whatchel1]

Don't understand

They are both used for image compression though. I never said that JPEG compression was used in MPEG4 video since I'm not even sure what that means. I was saying that you could use a version of JPEG for video if you wanted to. Such a codec does exist. They do share certain things in common, but MPEG is designed for more than one picture in succession, hence the ability to only encode the difference and reference other frames/pictures and other optimizations.

Why would you bring up something that isn't being used for the subject at hand?

 

[redelephants]

Lets get back to the topic at hand, I am speaking with another sub on a different site that is experiencing some macroblocking during motion some of his HD channels. He states he is getting them from the 61.5 sat. Did anyone happen to capture this problem during the steelers game last night on nfl network?

 

[TigerpounceTN]

Why would you bring up something that isn't being used for the subject at hand?

Because you make statements that require explaining irrelevant things. My original reply was what I meant. MPEG can be used for just one frame and does use DCT compression schemes similar to JPEG. They are not completely unrelated.

 

[whatchel1]

supply info

Because you make statements that require explaining irrelevant things. My original reply was what I meant. MPEG can be used for just one frame and does use DCT compression schemes similar to JPEG. They are not completely unrelated.

I have not read anywhere that MPEG 4 uses any of the DCT scheme that JPEG does. So give us some info to back up the statement. I'm not talking about MPEG but MPEG 4 which as far as I know it isn't used for a single frame but image groups.

 

[primetimeguy]

Lets get back to the topic at hand, I am speaking with another sub on a different site that is experiencing some macroblocking during motion some of his HD channels. He states he is getting them from the 61.5 sat. Did anyone happen to capture this problem during the steelers game last night on nfl network?

The steelers game was atrocious on NFL Network last night.

 

[ehren]

The steelers game was atrocious on NFL Network last night.

it was indeed.

 

[redelephants]

The steelers game was atrocious on NFL Network last night.

When will this madness end? And to think they charge us extra for HD.

 

[ehren]

When will this madness end? And to think they charge us extra for HD.

when they go down to 4 channels of HD per transponder instead of 8, it's getting sickning. It's like we are back to MPEG 2 all over again.