Is this really necessary? My understanding is that the most egregious compression happens between the broadcasters and the viewers, especially cable and satellite (as opposed to OTA) because they're trying to squeeze more channels down a pipe that will only carry so many bits. The reason of course is that it's easier to sell more channel packages than "higher bitrate channels" to non-technical customers. I have a feeling that reducing compression from the source to the broadcaster won't really result in any perceivable quality bump, and definitely won't if the cable and satellite companies continue their current practice of compressing their channels into oblivion. What needs to happen is that cable and satellite companies either need to either:
1) Increase their bandwidth by using higher frequencies or alternate media in the case of cable. 2) Make better use of their existing bandwidth by switching to more efficient codecs and/or full SDV (both of which I realize would be a huge migration project due to hardware requirements on the end user's side) 3) Make sure to use the additional bandwidth achieved by either or both of the above methods to reduce the amount of compression on existing channels rather than offering a whole new set of channels also compressed into oblivion.
I also can't help but wonder if the money to install and maintain the infrastructure required to have a 1.5 Gbps connection would be better spent elsewhere, unless the DNC has some other need for that connection and Level 3 is just using it for this purpose in the meantime.
When you're applying compression to a signal, starting with something that is less compressed will end up looking better than something that started off more compressed. So if the network is compressing a 1.5Gbps signal for delivery to the affilitates, it's going to look better than if they're compressing the current 270Mbps signal, even though the final bitrate will be unchanged.
"Ah, HD DVD, our old friend - we thought we'd never see you again. But there was no mistaking it, here's the logo tucked away in Chinese manufacturer TCL's booth on a China Blue HD deck next to a similar Blu-ray player."
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Is this really necessary? My understanding is that the most egregious compression happens between the broadcasters and the viewers, especially cable and satellite (as opposed to OTA) because they're trying to squeeze more channels down a pipe that will only carry so many bits. The reason of course is that it's easier to sell more channel packages than "higher bitrate channels" to non-technical customers. I have a feeling that reducing compression from the source to the broadcaster won't really result in any perceivable quality bump, and definitely won't if the cable and satellite companies continue their current practice of compressing their channels into oblivion. What needs to happen is that cable and satellite companies either need to either:
1) Increase their bandwidth by using higher frequencies or alternate media in the case of cable.
2) Make better use of their existing bandwidth by switching to more efficient codecs and/or full SDV (both of which I realize would be a huge migration project due to hardware requirements on the end user's side)
3) Make sure to use the additional bandwidth achieved by either or both of the above methods to reduce the amount of compression on existing channels rather than offering a whole new set of channels also compressed into oblivion.
I also can't help but wonder if the money to install and maintain the infrastructure required to have a 1.5 Gbps connection would be better spent elsewhere, unless the DNC has some other need for that connection and Level 3 is just using it for this purpose in the meantime.
When you're applying compression to a signal, starting with something that is less compressed will end up looking better than something that started off more compressed. So if the network is compressing a 1.5Gbps signal for delivery to the affilitates, it's going to look better than if they're compressing the current 270Mbps signal, even though the final bitrate will be unchanged.