Thread: V+ Samsung V+ box
View Single Post
Old 15-01-2018, 08:09   #8
spiderplant
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,903
spiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny stars
spiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny starsspiderplant has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Samsung V+ box

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hymagumba View Post
You say that, but given the more efficient encoding wouldn't it help some of the more excessively compressed channels, like food network?
Channels such as Food Network are already compressed whan VM receive them. There is nothing that VM can do to improve the quality. (Must admit I hadn't noticed a problem on FN).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hymagumba View Post
Is it just the case there is enough bandwidth for the TV channels in existence and therefore they don't need to swap to MPEG4
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hymagumba View Post
or is it that the costs outweigh the benefits for the timebeing? I'd have thought it'd be harder / more expensive to source MPEG2 encoding hardware these days compared to MPEG4.
MPEG2 is basically a subset of MPEG4, and all the current encoders can do both.
spiderplant is offline   Reply With Quote