Home News Forum Articles
  Welcome back Join CF
You are here You are here: Home | Forum | Changes to Virgin TV (2020)

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.


Welcome to Cable Forum
Go Back   Cable Forum > Virgin Media Services > Virgin Media TV Service

The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 19-12-2020, 14:50   #1
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

I accidentally recorded All Aboard! The Great Reindeer Migration from BBC4 HD again the other day, and it occurred to me to check how much space they both took, I was curious.

5.41GB - was recorded on 24th December 2018 back when BBC4 HD was on 163
2.3GB - was recorded on 12th December this year.

I'm assuming most of this difference is the switch from MPEG2 to MPEG4. I was expecting the newest recording to be around 3GB, so the difference was much better.

Thought it might briefly interest others who have VM TV how much has changed behind the scenes, and yet how little they may have noticed.
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Old 19-12-2020, 14:53   #2
Mad Max
cf.mega poster
 
Mad Max's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,277
Mad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appeal
Mad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appealMad Max has a bronzed appeal
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyangus View Post
I accidentally recorded All Aboard! The Great Reindeer Migration from BBC4 HD again the other day, and it occurred to me to check how much space they both took, I was curious.

5.41GB - was recorded on 24th December 2018 back when BBC4 HD was on 163
2.3GB - was recorded on 12th December this year.

I'm assuming most of this difference is the switch from MPEG2 to MPEG4. I was expecting the newest recording to be around 3GB, so the difference was much better.

Thought it might briefly interest others who have VM TV how much has changed behind the scenes, and yet how little they may have noticed.
That's a huge difference from 2018 mate.
Mad Max is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2020, 15:23   #3
TheWatcher
cf.member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Services: VM100 BB, Talk Anytime landline, V6 (Full House TV)
Posts: 24
TheWatcher is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyangus View Post
I accidentally recorded All Aboard! The Great Reindeer Migration from BBC4 HD again the other day, and it occurred to me to check how much space they both took, I was curious.

5.41GB - was recorded on 24th December 2018 back when BBC4 HD was on 163
2.3GB - was recorded on 12th December this year.

I'm assuming most of this difference is the switch from MPEG2 to MPEG4. I was expecting the newest recording to be around 3GB, so the difference was much better.

Thought it might briefly interest others who have VM TV how much has changed behind the scenes, and yet how little they may have noticed.
How did you find out this info? Is it from the boxes themselves?
TheWatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2020, 16:13   #4
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatcher View Post
How did you find out this info? Is it from the boxes themselves?
Yes. You can find it by pressing Info button on a particular recorded episode screen. It shows both a % of box space and the size in GB to two decimal places.

I'm currently watching live stream of my local football team so I can't look it up to be more precise with my words for these instructions.
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2020, 16:37   #5
spiderplant
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,127
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 stars
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyangus View Post
I'm assuming most of this difference is the switch from MPEG2 to MPEG4. I was expecting the newest recording to be around 3GB, so the difference was much better.
The HD channels became MPEG4 in January 2018. The difference is down to the new encoders.
spiderplant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2020, 19:08   #6
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant View Post
The HD channels became MPEG4 in January 2018. The difference is down to the new encoders.
Many thanks spiderplant.

I had a feeling new encoders were a part of it, I recall them being mentioned recently but have no idea how long they've been installed. I couldn't remember when the HD channels switched to MPEG4 so wasn't sure what to attribute to the change. How much bigger were the MPEG2 HD channels on VM just before they were superceded?

It's impressive the results, I couldn't really see any difference when I compared scenes.
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2020, 22:11   #7
spiderplant
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,127
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 stars
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

The new encoders have been gradually introduced since October. The switch to MPEG4 halved the bit-rate, and now it's being halved again.

And if you think that's impressive, see the bit-rates that Netflix are dabbling with:
https://netflixtechblog.com/optimize...g-47b516b10bbb
spiderplant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2020, 22:23   #8
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,056
jfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appeal
jfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appeal
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyangus View Post
Many thanks spiderplant.

I had a feeling new encoders were a part of it, I recall them being mentioned recently but have no idea how long they've been installed. I couldn't remember when the HD channels switched to MPEG4 so wasn't sure what to attribute to the change. How much bigger were the MPEG2 HD channels on VM just before they were superceded?

It's impressive the results, I couldn't really see any difference when I compared scenes.
Some of the initial MPEG-2 HD broadcasts initially were around 16-18 Mb/sec taking up about half of a 38 Mb/sec 64 QAM transport stream (minus overheads).

A quick skim on Digitalbitrate has the current MPEG4 HD channels varying anything between 2 and 7 MB/sec as this depends how many channels are being squeezed in and what prioritisation they are given. Digitalbitrate is currently reporting BBC 4 HD averaging 1.8.

You are probably comparing when the number of HD channels was capped at about 6 per transport stream (a straight average of 7.5 MB/sec once overheads taken out, with BBC4 a lower priority compared to other content on the stream).
jfman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 01:41   #9
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quite possible jfman.

Wow. That's impressive spiderplant. Even Freeview might be able to achieve some previously unthought of things on its HD mulitplexes if those examples are anything to go by.
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 12:01   #10
Raider999
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,477
Raider999 is a glorious beacon of lightRaider999 is a glorious beacon of lightRaider999 is a glorious beacon of lightRaider999 is a glorious beacon of lightRaider999 is a glorious beacon of lightRaider999 is a glorious beacon of lightRaider999 is a glorious beacon of light
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyangus View Post
Quite possible jfman.

Wow. That's impressive spiderplant. Even Freeview might be able to achieve some previously unthought of things on its HD mulitplexes if those examples are anything to go by.

Only impressive if the picture quality has not suffered.

You have an ideal opportunity to gauge this by watching both recordings.
Raider999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 12:22   #11
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheekyangus View Post
Many thanks spiderplant.

I had a feeling new encoders were a part of it, I recall them being mentioned recently but have no idea how long they've been installed. I couldn't remember when the HD channels switched to MPEG4 so wasn't sure what to attribute to the change. How much bigger were the MPEG2 HD channels on VM just before they were superceded?

It's impressive the results, I couldn't really see any difference when I compared scenes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider999 View Post
Only impressive if the picture quality has not suffered.

You have an ideal opportunity to gauge this by watching both recordings.
I did briefly, hence what I said earlier. I couldn't see anything obvious. I'll have another longer look at a later time.
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 12:36   #12
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,056
jfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appeal
jfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appealjfman has a bronzed appeal
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider999 View Post
Only impressive if the picture quality has not suffered.

You have an ideal opportunity to gauge this by watching both recordings.
You would think people would notice if there was a deterioration but the evidence from the rapid decline of SD bandwidths and what passes off as SD now vs the introduction of digital would indicate otherwise. Users simply gradually adjusted.
jfman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 12:51   #13
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman View Post
You would think people would notice if there was a deterioration but the evidence from the rapid decline of SD bandwidths and what passes off as SD now vs the introduction of digital would indicate otherwise. Users simply gradually adjusted.
Upscaling tech has got better and helped, but I agree slow changes have got some used to poorer quality, and they don't care enough to moan loudly enough in large numbers.

As I type this I'm currently watching (well, it's on in the background) one of the lower resolution SD Freeview channels in the kitchen 24 inch (circa 2010) TV and it's acceptable. The screen in question has Full HD resolution (via other input sources) but no HD tuner, so I'm not sure how much upscaling it's doing, but it's 10 years old tech (at least).
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 18:05   #14
Skie
a giant headend
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,096
Skie has reached the bronze age
Skie has reached the bronze ageSkie has reached the bronze ageSkie has reached the bronze ageSkie has reached the bronze ageSkie has reached the bronze ageSkie has reached the bronze ageSkie has reached the bronze age
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

A good test was always the Olympic swimming and rafting events. Water kills compression algorithms for fun.
Skie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2020, 19:11   #15
cheekyangus
cf.mega poster
 
cheekyangus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,663
cheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond reputecheekyangus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The change in storage space needed for recordings on VM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skie View Post
A good test was always the Olympic swimming and rafting events. Water kills compression algorithms for fun.
Good to know. Thanks. I'll pay particular attention to any water segments then. Though I can't see there being (m)any in the particular show I've got for comparison.
cheekyangus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:02.


Server: curium.zmnt.uk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.