PBS mux on 125W moving around...preparing for changes
- Thread starter Mr Tony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 232
- Views 38K
- Status
I know what you were getting at
, but like Ice says all this talk about it for months on here, but when they make the switch, people will still be asking where it went....or start a thread saying PBS is gone.Hello Iceberg.Have you seen this information on the web about Satmex5 becoming Satmex8?
Satmex 8 is a high-power C- and Ku-band satellite that will replace Satmex 5 and will provide Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) in both North and South America. Satmex (Satelites Mexicanos S.A. de C.V.) as leading satellite services provider in the Americas offers continental and regional services including video contribution and distribution, broadband services, cellular backhaul, and distance learning. The new satellite will enhance the current Satmex fleet in providing better performance and additional capacity. Satmex 8 has 24 C- and 40 Ku-band transponders and will be located at 116.8 degrees West longitude. The satellite is scheduled for launch in 2012.
Satmex 8 is a high-power C- and Ku-band satellite that will replace Satmex 5 and will provide Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) in both North and South America. Satmex (Satelites Mexicanos S.A. de C.V.) as leading satellite services provider in the Americas offers continental and regional services including video contribution and distribution, broadband services, cellular backhaul, and distance learning. The new satellite will enhance the current Satmex fleet in providing better performance and additional capacity. Satmex 8 has 24 C- and 40 Ku-band transponders and will be located at 116.8 degrees West longitude. The satellite is scheduled for launch in 2012.
turning this into a religion, secular competition/debate is 100 % useless to this forum.
i have seen it in other forums, no winners, no conversions.
i have seen it in other forums, no winners, no conversions.
Last edited by a moderator:
A cool article, but I found this paragraph to be absurd:
Just flat out lies here. I highly doubt they are talking about us here; they're talking about viewers of PBS affiliates.
PBS affiliates will be passing along the same bitrate-starved MPEG-2 crap over the air that they've been passing on for the last eight years. The end consumer should see little difference after the conversion. Not a single affiliate, not a single provider will be providing PBS in MPEG-4. The end consumer will always be getting a re-encoded MPEG-2 feed or a MPEG-4 -> MPEG-2 -> MPEG-4 feed (DirecTV/Dish re-encode local affiliates' MPEG-2 over-the-air broadcasts to bitrate starved MPEG-4, producing video that looks even worse than if it was just left alone in its already bad MPEG-2 form)
It's only those of us who participate in free-to-air satellite - and bypass the dumbed down, re-encoded affiliate feeds intended for noob viewers and get the MPEG-4 feeds straight from the source - who will see the improvements of the MPEG-4 conversion. Although the affiliates will have the better MPEG-4 source material to re-encode to MPEG-2, the fact that most of them bitrate starve their MPEG-2 re-encodes so much and many halve the resolution to 720p should mean that most of the improvements of that higher quality source feed will be lost.
Also, I wonder if he's seen the same PBS MPEG-2/MPEG-4 screenshot comparisons I have. I wouldn't really describe them as "impressive." PBS's conversion to MPEG-4 has yielded less compression artifacts which is definitely nice but it seems to have brought with it DNR:
#01: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131926
#02: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131927
#03: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131928
#04: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131929
#05: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131930
#06: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131931
#07: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131932
#08: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131933
#09: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131934
#10: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/131935
The decreased detail due to what appears to be a DNR filter makes this transition has been a bit of a mixed bag; it's certainly not Blu-ray quality like NBC's H.264 feeds are. PBS using half the H.264 bitrate, a lower AVC profile, and DNR filters yields a decidedly "decent" but not "stunning" picture when compared to NBC's 24 Mbps feeds. I'm far from impressed. The quality improvement of switching to MPEG-4 should have been even higher than this.
I removed a couple posts that decided to veer offcourse and into an area that we do not discuss here
exactly
did someone piss in your Wheaties this morning or something?
We have had a no political/no religious talk for a while here now because no good can come out of it. That is why your post was removed. The post after that was also removed as it was a response to a (now) deleted post
As for the whole "dislike" thing you basically said quote
Guess what...... I do not care! The values of the children's programing, particularly , do not match mine.
So you don't care that the DVB channels are dropping or you don't care for PBS? If you don't care about PBS that might be why folks "disliked" your post. I'm not a huge PBS person but I do enjoy it once in a while. Or were you mad because you have a S2 receiver now so if the DVB feeds go away it doesnt bother you? There are folks out there who havent upgraded to S2 yet so the fact there was an update posted I thanked them for that.
But back to the like/dislike thing if there was a channel that you liked and if I wrote "I dont care about that channel. It sucks" then you have every right to dislike the post. Thats what the "like" and "dislike" options are for.
All talk like that does is turn people against each other and brings really nothing to the table. So if you want to leave because I removed a post that would have been removed anyways by most mods here that is up to you.
i am requesting the removal of the post above yours also Ice, he doesnt seem to want to drop it...
heh, then drop mine too.
sorry i posted
heh, then drop mine too.
sorry i posted
What the Hell are you pissed about man lighten up. I disliked your post yes. Not because I hate you or whatever reason you can come up with....I disliked because you said you didn't like PBS. As far as the religious postings I would have deleted if Ice had not of beat me to it. Reason, cause it is against the rules, WHY, because all it does is start a pissing match. I respect anybody's religious views or political ones too, but don't bring them to this board, we are not here for that. We are here to discuss Satellite and related technology. RV1 you know better, so no reason to get all pissey man. Lighten up, nobody is against you.
Well considering that Satellite AV sells a feature packed commercial S2 rack mount receiver, the WellAV UMH-160 for only $800 with next day delivery, I wouldn't think that cost or availability would be excuses... 
http://satelliteav.com/p/shop/?ws_pid=1557&ws_cat=485
http://satelliteav.com/p/shop/?ws_pid=1557&ws_cat=485
It's no more bit-starved than any other broadcast network. ATSC requires MPEG-2, so that's what PBS/ABC/NBC/FOX/CBS/CW use.
Using MPEG-2 has nothing to do with dumbing things down for noob viewers. It's required. "Halving" (720p actually has more pixels/second than 1080i) the resolution to 720p is actually not a bad idea if you can't allocate enough bits to do 1080i properly (for some definition of "properly").
PBS actually did tests showing that even when stations broadcast MPEG-2, switching distribution to MPEG-4 gave a measurable improvement. IIRC, those tests used MPEG-2 at ~13Mbit/s.
- Status
