4:2:2 on the MicroHD in the future?

[VO1ONE]

Any chance that 4:2:2 could somehow be implemented in the future?

 

[Mr Tony]

Any chance that 4:2:2 could somehow be implemented in the future?

its been noted numerous times previously the chip in the Micro can't do 4:2:2

However you can record 4:2:2 programs and play them back on your computer with the right codecs

 

[VO1ONE]

its been noted numerous times previously the chip in the Micro can't do 4:2:2

However you can record 4:2:2 programs and play them back on your computer with the right codecs

I'll be the first to admit I haven't read all 500+ threads where the microHD is mentioned, however I haven't been able to track down the exact reason why or a good explanation why 4:2:2 cannot be implemented in this box. Sure the ALI chipset doesn't have 4:2:2 integrated into the chip, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be programmed to do so via software. If boxes can be programmed to do things not natively supported by the chipset, like decode nagravision for example, why could they not be programmed to decode 4:2:2 chroma?

 

[Mr Tony]

you might be able to record 4:2:2 and play it back on a computer with the right codecs. That was asked in the review and I'm gonna try it today

 

[rv1pop]

I'll be the first to admit I haven't read all 500+ threads where the microHD is mentioned, however I haven't been able to track down the exact reason why or a good explanation why 4:2:2 cannot be implemented in this box. Sure the ALI chipset doesn't have 4:2:2 integrated into the chip, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be programmed to do so via software. If boxes can be programmed to do things not natively supported by the chipset, like decode nagravision for example, why could they not be programmed to decode 4:2:2 chroma?

Do you want to pay for a standard ham 80M through 6M transceiver or a full blown Computer controlled DSP spectrum analyzer 160M through 0.125 CM four transmitter 8 receiver unit that weighs 450 pounds?

Basically: weight, size, current draw, cost, design time, reliability .......

QRZ FD K7EVI EWA Kli Co.

And who is on 0.125 CM? -- who is going to be using using 4:2:2 by the time the bugs get worked out --- and by the time the "Broadcast Standard" is worked out (or abandoned completely)?

 

[VO1ONE]

Do you want to pay for a standard ham 80M through 6M transceiver or a full blown Computer controlled DSP spectrum analyzer 160M through 0.125 CM four transmitter 8 receiver unit that weighs 450 pounds?

Basically: weight, size, current draw, cost, design time, reliability .......

QRZ FD K7EVI EWA Kli Co.

And who is on 0.125 CM? -- who is going to be using using 4:2:2 by the time the bugs get worked out --- and by the time the "Broadcast Standard" is worked out (or abandoned completely)?

Standard HF rig is 160M through 10M, although these days most have at least 6M and often have 2M and 70CM as well By the way, where is there such a tranceiver that operates 1.8 MHz through 230 GHz? By the way, I was on 13cm when AO-51 had a 13cm downlink but alas she operates no longer, along with probably the most famous 13cm downlink, AO-40. May they rest in peace!

While I appreciate your attempt at a ham analogy, it's apples to oranges. The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is NOT in modulation at all. In fact, the signal can be received and recorded, just not played back on most set top boxes. It's the same frequencies, the same modulation types, just different data. It seems like all that would need to be done would be to decode those slightly different 1s and 0s into a 4:2:0 datastream. Like I said before, it has been done before with other types of encoding. When you take it over to a computer, the only thing different happening is you have software on your computer (a codec) that decodes that 4:2:2 signal. Why can't this be done in a box, regardless of chipset? The processor seems fast enough, there seems to be plenty of RAM. Is it a licensing issue with the codec? Too much of a programming effort?

A lot of pro HD recording equipment is 4:2:2 natively which I assume is why we see it with feeds. Is it worth the effort? That's not up to me to decide. It seems like no one seems to think so. Grander things have been done for the eye patch crew but the financial benefit to them for enabling that is great motivation. Having 4:2:2 in this box would give it another leg up on most any other box out there, but whose to say the Chinese won't take all that hard work, reverse engineer it and all STBs will have it? I'd just enjoy hearing from the technical end, someone in development what about the hardware can't make 4:2:2 happen with some software magic

GL in FD es 73

 

[Mr Tony]

I broke these posts off to a new thread. Lets try to keep the other one for requests and bugs/fixes and not conversations

 

[James leandre]

Question to satelliteAv

Dear satelliteav, it's great to have an HD stb that has direct support in North America.Do you think after the Micro HD project, that you can create an HD stb that does Dvb-s,Dvb-s2, and 4:2:2 without support for youTub,Plug-ins, and all the multimedia junk that the AZBOX have.Just an stb that does all the popular satellite formates without the multimedia stuff ,because we can use a computer for the multimedia stuff.

 

[rv1pop]

Basically, the analogy I was trying to make is that it is an extra, that does take more memory for one thing, and it is not an established format. T's 4.2.2 will not decode on A,s downlink. (Although I don't think A even supports 4.2.2) It can be tuned in ... but may not hold for broadcasters requirements. Some of the stations in the Seattle market are not investing in it because they do not think it has a future.

Keep your eyes on where the purchaser of "former M" goes. Where is the money, there goes the industry - but it may not be consumer pricing - especially to begin with.

 

[SatelliteAV]

4:2:2 support is not possible on the microHD without a daughterboard. The market is too niche to develop a product specifically for 4:2:2. Azbox and DVBS/S2 PCI /USB PC solutions are available, perform well and are very reasonably priced.

I have repeated this many times and the reduced transmissions indicate that my observations are correct...... The trend continues.... 4:2:2 usage continues to decline as it was used to increase the resolution of MPEG2 using legacy equipment. MPEG4 provides better efficiency, uses less bandwidth provide higher resolution. Yes, I understand that there are occasional feeds and two 24/7 channels, but there are many less events using 4:2:2 each year. It was a stop gap that is no longer necessary and rarely used as most trucks and downlinks have now transitioned to MPEG4.

Unless a chipset natively supports 4:2:2 and it excels as a DVBS / S2 STB, it doesn't make much business sense to develop. At this point there is no well supported chipset supporting 4:2:2 that is produced targeting the consumer market. BTW.... Azbox mistakenly supported 4:2:2. It was pointed out by a hobbyist, after the STB's release, that the Sigma chipset supported 4:2:2. Several months later a firmware release enabled it. Sigma has little interest or internal support for the DVBS market as they are primarily focused on the media player market.

 

[brentb636]

"Azbox mistakenly supported 4:2:2". I would say "accidently". It certainly wasn't a mistake, since we're happy to have 4:2:2 support, and the AZboxes main claim to fame is that 4:2:2 support . The Azbox HD series is too kludgey to be a popular receiver, if it didn't support 4:2:2 chroma. Overall, I think that a PCI card solution with a personal computer is the best way to handle any oddball signals that we run across. It takes a little getting used to, but has far more flexibility and raw power to deal with the wide variety of transmissions from the sky. Dedicated stb's for the mainstream stuff, and PCI solution for the occasional weirdo's is my motto ( well , one my motto's anyway ) ...

 

[stbel55]

Keeping it simple, when in my Sat scanning and viewing would I need this 4:2:2. Upgrading to S2 & MPEG4 with micro HD and now I'm hearing I might need 4:2:2 soon???

 

[SatelliteAV]

Keeping it simple, when in my Sat scanning and viewing would I need this 4:2:2. Upgrading to S2 & MPEG4 with micro HD and now I'm hearing I might need 4:2:2 soon???

No, what you're hearing us say is that 4:2:2 use is on the decline. If you don't need 4:2:2 now, you need it even less in the future!

There are more analog signals up their than 4:2:2. Why isn't anyone suggesting that a receiver be built to include analog? LOL?

 

[toucan-man]

Why isn't anyone suggesting that a receiver be built to include analog? LOL?

Could it be implemented?

 

[brentb636]

For a price !

 

[SatelliteAV]

Could it be implemented?

LOL! Could or would? Anything is possible, but just because it is possible doesn't mean that it should or will.....

In the case of the microHD, it will not support analog or 4:2:2.

 

[toucan-man]

Forget analog, I'll just hold out for the PTO you promised.

 

[brentb636]

I'm sure that if I REALLY wanted an analog receiver and a Curtis Mathis tube-type console TV set ( maybe with a built-in phonograph) , somebody could supply it. It would be a niche market, though, for any entrepreneur to expect to make a living.

 

[brentb636]

"PTO" ..I'd forgotten THAT option... MicroHD/Chipper-shredder ? It has possibilities...

 

[Mr Tony]

No, what you're hearing us say is that 4:2:2 use is on the decline. If you don't need 4:2:2 now, you need it even less in the future!

the last time I needed 4:2:2 was when Murray State Basketball was trying for the undefeated season. The "Entertainment and Sports Network" would use 4:2:2 SD (and stretch it to 16x9) when it was on their "U" channel a couple times.....thats what the Digitrans is for

Other than that Daystar feed I found and the "feeds" channel on AMG TV (97W C-Band) those are the only 4:2:2 stations I know. The one most familiar with 4:2:2 were the GDMX feeds on 99W (2820 V 26000). They beam up the syndicated shows (judge, TMZ, older shows) and were 4:2:2. They have been 4:2:0 for a while now
http://www.satelliteguys.us/free-air-fta-discussion/266366-gdmx-channels-99w-now-4-2-a.html

so yeah 4:2:2 is not needed. I mean the MicroHD can record it. Just play it back on a computer (thats what I did for that test)