Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="leecovuk" data-source="post: 814886" data-attributes="member: 190240">Hello Elmin and everyone else.I'll have a test of switching away and back during the static logo. I don't doubt you're right anyway, Elmin, as it seems you've made some well researched points.My current perception of the actual picture quality once cleared, is the same as earlier, in that it is blocky but watchable and an improvement over the very poor pictures of the last month. Indeed however, no sign of the promised high quality.Can somebody kindly take some new bit rate measurements and compare them to the last ones? I don't really understand the satcodx site.I'm also guessing that the quality of the material they are transmitting may in itself be of a poor or blocky quality, previously cached/recorded into their playout system like that. I suppose any channel bit rate readings wouldn't be affected by this, but of course the resulting picture will be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="leecovuk, post: 814886, member: 190240"] Hello Elmin and everyone else. I'll have a test of switching away and back during the static logo. I don't doubt you're right anyway, Elmin, as it seems you've made some well researched points. My current perception of the actual picture quality once cleared, is the same as earlier, in that it is blocky but watchable and an improvement over the very poor pictures of the last month. Indeed however, no sign of the promised high quality. Can somebody kindly take some new bit rate measurements and compare them to the last ones? I don't really understand the satcodx site. I'm also guessing that the quality of the material they are transmitting may in itself be of a poor or blocky quality, previously cached/recorded into their playout system like that. I suppose any channel bit rate readings wouldn't be affected by this, but of course the resulting picture will be. [/QUOTE]

Verification