I'll try and politely ask that only people respond with direct experience, watched side by side, etc, which will likely limit my responses a lot.
I hear a lot of people bashing D*'s MPEG4 HD offerings, that OTA looks much better, the MPEG4 feeds are down-rez'd, etc.
While I image the new MPEG4 feeds use less bandwidth, and some might argue more compressed, I would hope that the new mpeg4 technology does a better job w/bandwidth and that what we would think of as "more compression" doesn't really show up all that much, except for the most picky eyes.
I think there's a lot of people that just like to bash for the sake of bashing... If it isn't PERFECT, then it's garbage.
Anyway, on to the meat of the matter ... How does it look? Is there a HUGE difference between OTA vs D*'s MPEG4 HD?
TIA!
-b
I hear a lot of people bashing D*'s MPEG4 HD offerings, that OTA looks much better, the MPEG4 feeds are down-rez'd, etc.
While I image the new MPEG4 feeds use less bandwidth, and some might argue more compressed, I would hope that the new mpeg4 technology does a better job w/bandwidth and that what we would think of as "more compression" doesn't really show up all that much, except for the most picky eyes.
I think there's a lot of people that just like to bash for the sake of bashing... If it isn't PERFECT, then it's garbage.
Anyway, on to the meat of the matter ... How does it look? Is there a HUGE difference between OTA vs D*'s MPEG4 HD?
TIA!
-b