john1290
join:2003-12-06
Reynoldsburg, OH |  Laughable
Hmmm.... Joke-Verse's "6-8Mbps per HD stream, to around 5Mbps" (gotta love that copper!!!) and on the other side we have Verizon's 19.2Mbps per HD stream. Wonder which service will offer the better picture quality? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | You're discussing MPEG2 versus MPEG4 compression schemes. Not really a fair comparison. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by openbox9  :You're discussing MPEG2 versus MPEG4 compression schemes. Not really a fair comparison. Yes it is. 5mbps re-encoded Mpeg4 is never going to be as good as source-stream, full-bandwidth Mpeg2 HD.
DirecTV's Mpeg4 works very well because they're sending that at 7-8mbps. Starve a few more megabits (like ATT will) and you'll see image degradation.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Never say never. Until the transmissions are compared, neither of us can make a determination. |
|
jinjimbob
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13 | reply to openbox9
AT&T's is not HD, it certainly was HD before they re-encode it from mpeg2 to mpeg4.
It is might be HD-light, just like DirecTv does theirs.
BUT it is not HD. |
|
grydlok
join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| So since HBO switched to Mpeg4, it's not HD they are uplinking to all providers that you been watching, and haven't noticed. So you call it HD light, because it isn't mpeg2.
»www.engadgethd.com/2007/06/22/hb···it-rate/ |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to jinjimbob
What qualifies content as HD? Bitrate, resolution, format, etc????? Based on your comment, content must be transmitted in MPEG2 to be HD? |
|
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to jinjimbob
said by jinjimbob :AT&T's is not HD, it certainly was HD before they re-encode it from mpeg2 to mpeg4. It is might be HD-light, just like DirecTv does theirs. BUT it is not HD. You do realize that mpeg4 is capable of a much higher level of compression without looking worse when compared to mpeg2, correct? This is why you can download a 1.4GB mpeg4+mp3 AVI that looks just as good as your typical dual-layer DVD mpeg2 release.
A 5mbps mpeg4 stream is DARN good folks. Of course, what ATT should have really done is move to h.264 to begin with. A 5mbps h.264 stream is astoundingly good. Sure, the STB's would have been more expensive - But the payoff would have been great. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Mchart :said by jinjimbob :AT&T's is not HD, it certainly was HD before they re-encode it from mpeg2 to mpeg4. It is might be HD-light, just like DirecTv does theirs. BUT it is not HD. You do realize that mpeg4 is capable of a much higher level of compression without looking worse when compared to mpeg2, correct? This is why you can download a 1.4GB mpeg4+mp3 AVI that looks just as good as your typical dual-layer DVD mpeg2 release. A 5mbps mpeg4 stream is DARN good folks. Of course, what ATT should have really done is move to h.264 to begin with. A 5mbps h.264 stream is astoundingly good. Sure, the STB's would have been more expensive - But the payoff would have been great. 5mpbs mp4 is NOT, however, equal to the full 19.2mbps HD source. The bitrate is just getting too low. Mpeg4 is a fantastic compression technique, but it aint a miracle-worker. If you bitstarve you're still going to see compression artifacts on action, sports, and other shots with lots of movement. When it comes to consumer-level HD, this stuff matters a LOT. It's already an issue with DirecTV at 7mbps. It's not going to get miraculously better when ATT tries it at 5mbps.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
Mchart
Super Joe
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by tiger72 :said by Mchart :said by jinjimbob :AT&T's is not HD, it certainly was HD before they re-encode it from mpeg2 to mpeg4. It is might be HD-light, just like DirecTv does theirs. BUT it is not HD. You do realize that mpeg4 is capable of a much higher level of compression without looking worse when compared to mpeg2, correct? This is why you can download a 1.4GB mpeg4+mp3 AVI that looks just as good as your typical dual-layer DVD mpeg2 release. A 5mbps mpeg4 stream is DARN good folks. Of course, what ATT should have really done is move to h.264 to begin with. A 5mbps h.264 stream is astoundingly good. Sure, the STB's would have been more expensive - But the payoff would have been great. 5mpbs mp4 is NOT, however, equal to the full 19.2mbps HD source. The bitrate is just getting too low. Mpeg4 is a fantastic compression technique, but it aint a miracle-worker. If you bitstarve you're still going to see compression artifacts on action, sports, and other shots with lots of movement. When it comes to consumer-level HD, this stuff matters a LOT. It's already an issue with DirecTV at 7mbps. It's not going to get miraculously better when ATT tries it at 5mbps. No, a 5mbps mpeg4 is not going to look as good as a 19.2mbps mpeg2. Of course, then you have to ask the real question as to why they aren't offering 19.2 mbps mpeg4. |
|
