DL: Lady Gaga - Marry The Night + speech(Bambi 2011 - HD FEED - 1080i)

[BornToSlay 48]

Talking about "the digital TV broadcasts" as the channel itself or the feed? TV channels in general be it satellite, cable or OTA are way bitrate starved. There are very few HD channels that actually look good. They try to save as much bandwidth as possible to save on broadcasting costs ... and the sad part is that most people doesn't see the difference so they get away with subpar quality. Comparing some feeds to the channel broadcasts does make u wanna cry seeing when you know how it could have looked like if they had only spent a bit more on their bandwidth. :)

Regarding feeds it is not as common as ud might think with these 30-40mbit HD feeds ... in general it's lower ... (obviously a h264 feed does not require 40mbit to look excellent, i've seen 20mbit feeds that looks really good)

The broadcasters are not limited per say but renting satellite frequencies aint cheap so they cut down on the bitrate here aswell.

You also have to consider that a live event is encoded on the fly and hence requires higher bitrate then a reencode where you have no time limits.

Thanks for the info. Admittedly, my knowledge about DTV is limited compared to internet streaming protocols. I guess I was overgeneralizing since I was kind of just lumping feeds and channel broadcasts together. I didn't mean to say that TV is not bandwidth limited, but my point was that it is less limited than on the internet. At least the broadcasters can control where they want to allocate their bandwidth whereas internet streaming needs to account for people with slow connections along with server/bandwidth costs.

I guess more HDTV channels nowadays is not always a good thing. You get more HD content, but at you're sacrificing the bitrates of all the channels. I have cable TV and it's interesting to see which channels my cable provider chooses to allocate more bandwidth to. When there's a big network show with tons of viewers, that channel always looks really good. Meanwhile when you switch to one of the low viewer HD cable channels, it looks like crap. During off peak times, there's a more even distribution.

[chizzum 0]

Thanks for the info. Admittedly, my knowledge about DTV is limited compared to internet streaming protocols. I guess I was overgeneralizing since I was kind of just lumping feeds and channel broadcasts together. I didn't mean to say that TV is not bandwidth limited, but my point was that it is less limited than on the internet. At least the broadcasters can control where they want to allocate their bandwidth whereas internet streaming needs to account for people with slow connections along with server/bandwidth costs.

I guess more HDTV channels nowadays is not always a good thing. You get more HD content, but at you're sacrificing the bitrates of all the channels. I have cable TV and it's interesting to see which channels my cable provider chooses to allocate more bandwidth to. When there's a big network show with tons of viewers, that channel always looks really good. Meanwhile when you switch to one of the low viewer HD cable channels, it looks like crap. During off peak times, there's a more even distribution.

Internet streaming and TV are two different things tho :) unless you mean TV via internet which i would assume (don't have any figures) is much cheaper to distribute then satellite due to the providers usually use their own network while for example satellite broadcasters have to hire expensive frequencies from the satellite providers.

Neither sat/cable/internet is limited by their hardware in practice, it's all about costs and they want to pay as little as possible and that is never good for us costumers. This is nothing new, before HD existed it was the same with SD channels and still is. But there are not only bad providers, i subscribe to Sky UK and Ca--l Digital (SE) here in Europe and they both usually have excellent HD quality on their own channels, ca--l digital have it easy since their owner also is the owner of the satellite they broadcast on ;)

[BornToSlay 48]

Internet streaming and TV are two different things tho :) unless you mean TV via internet which i would assume (don't have any figures) is much cheaper to distribute then satellite due to the providers usually use their own network while for example satellite broadcasters have to hire expensive frequencies from the satellite providers.

Neither sat/cable/internet is limited by their hardware in practice, it's all about costs and they want to pay as little as possible and that is never good for us costumers. This is nothing new, before HD existed it was the same with SD channels and still is. But there are not only bad providers, i subscribe to Sky UK and Ca--l Digital (SE) here in Europe and they both usually have excellent HD quality on their own channels, ca--l digital have it easy since their owner also is the owner of the satellite they broadcast on ;)

I don't know where I said TV and internet streaming are similar. I thought the whole point of this discussion was that they are different. Also, I never meant to imply that the bandwidth limits are because of hardware.

[Spartacus 4,485]

Forgive me of there're any rules against this but... bump.  Anyone have it in 1080?

[ObezyankaNol 3,069]

On 2017-5-23 at 2:22 AM, Spartacus said:

Forgive me of there're any rules against this but... bump.  Anyone have it in 1080?

https://yadi.sk/i/RegxHSoZk2Smn

[Spartacus 4,485]

9 hours ago, ObezyankaNol said:

https://yadi.sk/i/RegxHSoZk2Smn

Thank you so much!