Voom subs duped? 1280x1080i???????

[vurbano]

Verbano-

Stat Mux is a simple explanation that barely goes beyond "Compression" as the explanation. If you have ever done compression schemes for TV you'd know the recipe is quite complex and goes from technical know how to an artform in short order. This is why the actual process used is mostly a guarded trade secret by those who do it. I have my way but I know others do it better. If I ask how, they just smile and let you know it is their stock in trade.

PS I understand how you knew my IP in that banner and the ISP, but how did you know I was a PE? It lists all my stats including "Professional Engineer" I know, it is your trade secret.

1. Yes, I was making a very simple statement. Stat muxing makes the math far more complex since the bitrate is variable. Determining how you fit X many channels into a given bandwidth is less complex if the bandwidth assigned to each channel does not change with respect to time.

2. Since it was my signature I listed my title.

 

[Sean Mota]

I had been without internet all mroning. But I was able to confirm that Ken H was wrong. He has his agenda but for HD Channels under contract that required resolution at 1920x1080i VOOM is doing those. The others are set to 1440x1080i. So Ken H was plainly wrong!!!!!!!

 

[James Long]

I had been without internet all mroning. But I was able to confirm that Ken H was wrong. He has his agenda but for HD Channels under contract that required resolution at 1920x1080i VOOM is doing those. The others are set to 1440x1080i. So Ken H was plainly wrong!!!!!!!

Thanks for clearing it up.

JL

 

[zombie]

I had been without internet all mroning. But I was able to confirm that Ken H was wrong. He has his agenda but for HD Channels under contract that required resolution at 1920x1080i VOOM is doing those. The others are set to 1440x1080i. So Ken H was plainly wrong!!!!!!!

Does it even matter anymore?

BTW weren't you the one telling us voom will be here for a long time to come, as if you had some inside info? You voom tease!!!!!!

 

[Sean Mota]

Does it even matter anymore?

BTW weren't you the one telling us voom will be here for a long time to come, as if you had some inside info? You voom tease!!!!!!

Of course, it matters. Bad mouth someone and to say that they were delivering 1280x1080i all this time is incorrect. My inside information was as good as the insiders. Sorry but we all wished the outcome was different but it was not.

 

[vurbano]

Of course, it matters. Bad mouth someone and to say that they were delivering 1280x1080i all this time is incorrect. My inside information was as good as the insiders.

I agree, and it should matter especially to Sean and Scott who put so much work into this forum.

 

[zombie]

I agree, and it should matter especially to Sean and Scott who put so much work into this forum.

That's fine, it just doenst matter to me it looked better than any other service i've had and that matters more than the reported pixels..

What does matter to me is that we were jerked around so much by the Dolan family...

 

[67Yv8t]

What does matter to me is that we were jerked around so much by the Dolan family...

All that jerkin, got you -- and every other voomer-- an extra month of service.

that jerkin gave us all something to discuss and debate.

All the jerkin, provided more insight and detail into the workings of big business.

That jerkin gave us an opportunity to analyze all the other DBS's working and comparing their real benefit and affect.

All that jerkin, really wasn't that painful unless you wanted to participate in it.

You could have checked out of the discussion at any time.

I'm sorry it is going, but I'm not sorry I experienced it, nor that I experienced it with you all here.

 

[TheForce]

I had been without internet all mroning. But I was able to confirm that Ken H was wrong. He has his agenda but for HD Channels under contract that required resolution at 1920x1080i VOOM is doing those. The others are set to 1440x1080i. So Ken H was plainly wrong!!!!!!!

Never ceases to amaze me how so many place so much emphasis on "resolution", especially the higher end of the scale such as 1920 vs. 1280.

I wonder how many realize that 1920 can never be passed to your eyes in nearly all cases. Most monitors are the final resolution limiting device and will barely work beyond 1280, especially in a digital display where the native resolution is restricted. People using analog displays that can spec out at 1920 such as certain 9" CRT FPTV's don't operate them to reach that spec anyway because the image is too dim.

Anyway, I don't want to toot Ken's trumpet on this but I do respect his background for getting to the truth. I suspect that the truth is lost on the translations of all this. When someone says, we pass the resolution as it is received, doesn't mean that they specifically resample the content to a lower resolution or don't resample. It may mean that the resolution capability of a D5 master at 1920 is simply lost by the time all the video is processed by the system. You can shoot a video with softfx filtering on the lens as is done by many film camera DP's and the detail in the image is just not there. It effectively becomes reduced to little more than 1000 h lines in the 1920 capable master. I once asked Bob Ross of CBS about this and he agreed that the CBS network productions, being done on film were not only softened but the recordings on D5 contained no physical data in the higher resolution regions due to nothing there in the film itself.

I feel that until we, as consumers are using certified monitors that spec out to screen native resolution of 1920 pixels there is no cause for concern. While these monitors are now out and available for purchase, few people have them. In addition, we will begin to see more and more video production for HDTV being shot with HDCAMs (1440) and HDV(1280) and DVCProHD(1280) content which will record to tape no higher than 1280 anyway. All the bellyaching about a provider restricting resolution to 1280 on all programming is nothing more than a good move to conserve signal bandwidth from system noise. I'll complain when all program sources are nothing less than 1920 and post production is maintained at 1920 and distribution media is 1920 and we all use 1920 native displays. That will be way off in the future at this point because the industry is settling in on a mean figure of 1280 as the standard for HDTV horizontal resolution IN ALL CASES! Yes, JVC tried to redefine a format for lower than that but it didn't fly so with HDV and DVCPRO being the bottom of the industry practice at 1280, I think we all should feel happy if the system can maintain that. It is a good compromise. Arguing about the region between 1280 and 1920 is rediculous considering the entire infrastructure of our media.

PS - to some who don't understand the spec, when a monitor says it can receive the 1080ix1920 signal, it doesn't mean the display will resolve it. It just means that the monitor can scan and process that signal frequency in the circuitry.

 

[niceprophet]

I'm reminded of a scene from "Major League"

Fan #1: Too high..
Fan #2: What do you mean "too high"
Fan #1: The trajectory, it was... (interrupted)
Fan #3: Who the f@#k cares? It's gone.

 

[vurbano]

I'm reminded of a scene from "Major League"

Fan #1: Too high..
Fan #2: What do you mean "too high"
Fan #1: The trajectory, it was... (interrupted)
Fan #3: Who the f@#k cares? It's gone.

Thats funny. But hdlite isnt out of my ball park.