# Question about 622 HD resolution settings



## Calvin386 (May 23, 2007)

I finally got my 622. I have it hooked up via HDMI to a Sony 46s2010. My LCD is a 720p. However, in the specs for the LCD, it says...

*"HDMI IN 6:
Video: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i"*

I know they did not accidentally sell me a 1080i when I was buying a 720p so what should I have my receiver set to?

My 622 is currently set at...

*Analog type(Offair); TV type(720p); Aspect ratio(16x9)*

Here is a link to my LCD so you can take a look at the specs....

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Specifications-of-Sony-46-BRAVIA-S-Series-LCD-HDTV-KDL-46S2010/sem/rpsm/oid/158087/rpem/ccd/productDetailSpecification.do#tabs

Also, what is Analog type?

Thanks guys


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Basically I would try both settings 1080i and 720p and use the one that produces the best picture.


----------



## LinkNuc (Jul 4, 2007)

Well, your TV will accept a 1080i input and convert to 720p as is the case with most all 720p TV's nowadays. You would think that 720p would be the correct settingbut I'll be it looks better if you set your 622 to 1080i, I have a 23" 720p LCD in my bedroom and the 1080i setting actually looks better...

I say try it and see what you like best


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

LinkNuc said:


> Well, your TV will accept a 1080i input and convert to 720p as is the case with most all 720p TV's nowadays. You would think that 720p would be the correct settingbut I'll be it looks better if you set your 622 to 1080i, I have a 23" 720p LCD in my bedroom and the 1080i setting actually looks better...
> 
> I say try it and see what you like best


This would be because a 1080i program is being scaled down to 720p by the TV not the 622 (tvs generally have better hardware.)

However, in the case of a 720p program, the 622 would be scaling it up, then the TV would be scaling it back down. There will be some degredation in quality, and potentially signifigant extra voice/video lag.

Basically, "it depends."


----------



## LinkNuc (Jul 4, 2007)

koralis said:


> This would be because a 1080i program is being scaled down to 720p by the TV not the 622 (tvs generally have better hardware.)
> 
> However, in the case of a 720p program, the 622 would be scaling it up, then the TV would be scaling it back down. There will be some degredation in quality, and potentially signifigant extra voice/video lag.
> 
> Basically, "it depends."


Yup, you got it


----------



## lujan (Feb 10, 2004)

I've found that displays usually look better if the 622 is set to the native resolution of your display. I know my DLP does look better when set to 720p especially on the stations that broadcast in 720p.


----------



## kckucera (Aug 1, 2005)

To amplyfy Lujans comment, I think you will find SD programming to be too soft on a 1080i upscale, but it is a matter of taste. All 3 of my HDs are 720 native, yet my DLP Samsung looks best at 1080i whereas my LCD flat screen and LCD projector look better in 720p.


----------



## Calvin386 (May 23, 2007)

After doing some comparisons, I found that there is really not that much difference between the 2 settings. So I decided to just leave it the resolution of my LCD which is 720. 

On the HD setup page, I have Analog type set to offair. That's where it was by default. What is this? and is this the correct setting?


----------



## kckucera (Aug 1, 2005)

You are set correctly for OTA Dish, the others are for cable encoding schemes. If you dont want OTA then select Dish Locals (assuming your are subscribed).


----------



## Calvin386 (May 23, 2007)

Gotcha. I do have OTA locals. 

So far the Vip622 has been a very good experience. One complaint is the format feature. I do like to use the full screen on SD programing and the stretch feature stinks. It distorts the picture. 

I'm a little spoiled with the Sony technology. The widezoom setting stretches the 4:3 picture gradually from the center out. There is virtually no distortion. 

Has anyone else had an issue with this?


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Calvin386 said:


> Gotcha. I do have OTA locals.
> 
> So far the Vip622 has been a very good experience. One complaint is the format feature. I do like to use the full screen on SD programing and the stretch feature stinks. It distorts the picture.
> 
> ...


I generally prefer to leave 4:3 letterboxed on both of my sets but if watching a lot of SD on my Plasma I'll use either partial zoom or full zoom depending on the actual program. I've personally never been a big fan of the sets that just stretch the edges (which is what a lot of TNTHD is) but don't really have a lot of experience with Sony's version of it either. If you prefer how your set stretches to full screen have you tried to see if the 622 remote emulates that button from the Sony remote?


----------



## paulcdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

lujan said:


> I've found that displays usually look better if the 622 is set to the native resolution of your display. I know my DLP does look better when set to 720p especially on the stations that broadcast in 720p.


I agree with lujan. I find that setting the 622 to the native resolution of your set (usually 720p) works best. I have a Samsung DLP 5063, and the "Expand mode" does no scaling of the pic. "Wide mode" adds over-scan" I get 2, 2, 2, 2 on the HDNET test pattern for over-scan.

For a 720p signal source like ABC OTA or Dish LIL ABC MPEG4, there is no scaling between the source and my set. Every time you scale a digital pic, you loose a little PQ. NBC and HBOHD source in 1080i (which I call 540p), and are never as sharp as 720p source on my set.

This is why most of us want a resolution pass-through option to let our sets do the scaling only if necessary.

Paul


----------



## rice0209 (Oct 11, 2005)

Personally, I think the VIP 622 does a pretty good job of scaling and handling the picture, save for SD. But then again, it all comes down to the combination of the TV and the 622. Sometimes one scales better than the other.

1080i is tricky in that its interlaced versus 720p which is progressive, and that can make a big difference for 1) the size of tv and 2) the quality of scaling and processing the tv is capable of. 

The size is important, because as the picture gets larger, the image becomes less sharp. It just a simple fact that 720 pixels on a 30" tv are tighter together than a 50" tv. Many times though, people with larger tv's prefer 720 because the progressive nature of the signal reduces the blur created by interlaced due to less scans on the screen.

I have a native 720 p projector at 110" screen. 1080i looks awful just because the screen is so large and you will see motion blur as well as many other common video problems with interlaced. 720p looks sharp and clear and does extremely well with fast action shots. 

The difference here can be when the tv/projector has a very high quality video processor that can take a 1080i signal and enhance it enough to make it look great. Thats why it always goes back to the combo of the video source and tv used to display it. There are many different combinations and very few are the same. What looks good on one doesn't always look good on the other, so it takes some trial and error.

Generally, feeding your tv/projector its native source no scaling which means no enhancement and introduces less degredation, as another poster said previously.

As far as the stretch features for sd programs, they are just that, stretches. They are taking a signal with not enough information and finding a way to produce more. Some are better than others but i know exactly what you are talking about with your problems. I just prefer black bars on the sides of my SD content at this point. I would say i watch 60% HD content anyway, so it just doesn't bother me that much, at least not as much as stretching the picture does


----------



## jsuboh (Jun 7, 2005)

I would recommend setting it to 1080i (however it can be subjective depending on the TV model). Many LCD panels provide 1,366 x 768 resolution as their native resolution not 720p which is 1280 x 720. The Sony TV you mention, Sony 46s2010 has 1366 x 768 pixels as its native resolution. So if you select 720P, you not be able to take full advantage of the TV's full resolution. From my understanding, the TV will convert an interlaced signal to its native capable signal. However, as I stated earlier, it can be subjective depending on the quality of the conversion process.

I hope this help as well.

Thanks, J.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

From this thread... http://forum.videohelp.com/topic330293.html

"The playback VCR's at the networks all play back 1440x1080i or 1280x720p (ABC, ESPN and FOX). "


----------



## rice0209 (Oct 11, 2005)

jsuboh said:


> I would recommend setting it to 1080i (however it can be subjective depending on the TV model). Many LCD panels provide 1,366 x 768 resolution as their native resolution not 720p which is 1280 x 720. The Sony TV you mention, Sony 46s2010 has 1366 x 768 pixels as its native resolution. So if you select 720P, you not be able to take full advantage of the TV's full resolution. From my understanding, the TV will convert an interlaced signal to its native capable signal. However, as I stated earlier, it can be subjective depending on the quality of the conversion process.
> 
> I hope this help as well.
> 
> Thanks, J.


The goal is to get a 1:1 pixel ratio. Ideally, the signal you send in is the same as the output of the tv. 1280 x 720 going in from the source, 1280 by 720 on the screen, etc.

Using the example above with a tv that has 1366 x 768, 720 would theoretically be the better option. Why? Because if the tv does not force the image to stretch out to 768 (which is a feature on a lot of televisions, you can fit a 1280 x 720 into a 1366 x 768 screen, with only small black bars on the top and bottom. This is very similiar to films that are anamorphic and not a 16:9 ratio.

If you feed a tv more than its is capable (EX 1920 x 1080 into a 720 or 768 tv), it now is no longer a 1:1 pixel map. It now has to find a way to merge these additional pixels into a smaller space. This requires more scaling and takes you further from a 1:1 ratio. Ideally, you want to avoid this as it allows more room for error in processing, and most of the time, less clarity.

Again, every tv is a case by case basis, and to further complicate things, most people don't view the images the same way. This discussion is very different when talking about crt tv's versus lcd and dlp technologies. The main reason being that crt don't have a "native resolution" per say where as LCD and DLP have a fixed pixel amount.


----------



## shortspark (Oct 25, 2006)

I have a Hitachi RPTV 56" and I have switched the 622's output back and forth between 1080i and 720p. I see little difference overall but 1080i has a slightly sharper picture. 

I have ordered a Mits hd1000u projector which has a native resolution of 720. I intend to use it with DVDs and an occasional HD program or movie with the 622. From what I have read at AVS, it would be better to send to the projector a signal that would require no scaling. In that case, when I hook up the 622 to the projector, I will alter the settings on the 622 to 720p and revert to 1080i when I view it on the Hitachi. It makes sense that this would be the purist display but if there is not much difference, I will simply leave it at one setting for convenance and let the equipment do the work. Having said all this, I still intend to experiment with all settings and possible configurations as there are few hard and fast rules in the world of audio/video.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

rice0209 said:


> ...
> Using the example above with a tv that has 1366 x 768, 720 would theoretically be the better option. Why? Because if the tv does not force the image to stretch out to 768 (which is a feature on a lot of televisions, you can fit a 1280 x 720 into a 1366 x 768 screen, with only small black bars on the top and bottom....


Methinks that you are somewhat confused. The proportions (16:9) are not changed when a signal of one input resolution is processed to match the screen resolution of the display device. Taking an HD 720p input signal (*at 16:9*) and processing it to display on a 1366 x 768 display (*at 16:9*) does not result in "small black bars on top or bottom." 

As *Ron Barry* said, "Basically I would try both settings 1080i and 720p and use the one that produces the best picture."


----------



## rice0209 (Oct 11, 2005)

Salti,

I believe that depends on the TV and whether the stretch is forced or not. IF the TV allows a native pass through, you will have small black bars on the edge and top as you are not utilizing all the pixels. If the tv forces a stretch, the entire screenw ill be filled and your pixels will not be 1:1. 

Higher end separate scalers allow you to pass a 720p signal into it and change it to a 768p signal, but it produces that black bars so that the image is still forced to a 1:1 ratio.

I did re-read my post and i made it sound as if 768p was not 16:9, i was meaning to refer to the use of anamorphic dvd's on widescreen with the black bars still appearing on the screen. That was my fault.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

rice0209 said:


> Salti,
> 
> I believe that depends on the TV and whether the stretch is forced or not. ...


If you start with a 16:9 image at any resolution and process it to another resolution again at 16:9 there is no need to introduce bars and no set would do so. Say you view OTA HD at 1080i and change the channel to Fox at 720p with the source materials both being 16:9 as is the display panel. No matter what the native resolution of the display screen, neither channel will be seen with bars.

*There is no "stretch" required* when going from 16:9 images to 16:9 images.


----------



## jsuboh (Jun 7, 2005)

Hi,

I understand Rice's point. I believe he is trying to state if you pass native 720p resolution without scaling it to 768p (still 16x9) it will produce a black border around the entire picture (which it would). However, most LCD (or Fixed pixel) Tv's will scale it to its native resolution, including the Sony TV mentioned above. In my opinion, I would rather have a 1080i signal with more detail reduced to a 768p signal rather than a 720p signal upconverted to 768p. Again, it is subjective and both settings need to be viewed and determined to be the best. I have my Sony 60XBR800 which displays 1080i a lot better than 720p.

Thanks,


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

jsuboh said:


> Hi,
> 
> I understand Rice's point. I believe he is trying to state if you pass native 720p resolution without scaling it to 768p (still 16x9) it will produce a black border around the entire picture (which it would). ...


*It will not* produce a black border. By definition of a HDTV by the CEA, the set must take an ATSC Table 3 signal and be capable of displaying it at 16:9!

I am looking at a 768p set with a built-in ATSC tuner, for example. I tune in a local over the air 1080i and it just fills the 768p screen. No stretch, no zoom, no nada. I change the channel to Fox at 720p. Same result. The internal TV scaler, are you ready, *scales* the incoming feed to match the TV's *native resolution*.

Now, change the OTA tuner to your STB - say E* rcvr. You set the STB, say, to 720p. The E* receiver will put *everything* out at 720p, at a 16:9 Ratio! The TV will deal with it and *scale* that 720p to 768p, the Native Display of the TV. *There will be no bars added!*

I tried. :nono2: :grin:


----------



## TallGuyXP (Sep 19, 2006)

SaltiDawg said:


> The internal TV scaler, are you ready, *scales* the incoming feed to match the TV's *native resolution*.
> ...
> The TV will deal with it and *scale* that 720p to 768p, the Native Display of the TV. *There will be no bars added!*


Salti,
I'm thinking that we all agree with you... I believe Rice was _hypothesizing_ that *if* the TV didn't scale the 720P to the native 768P, you'd end up with an image with small black bars all around because the image would be 1280x720 displayed on a screen size of 1366x768, while still maintaining a 16x9 image. But, as you say - the TV *does* scale to it's native 768P and so it won't display black borders.


----------



## rice0209 (Oct 11, 2005)

Yes Salti, I completely understand scaling and what you are saying. I understand that many tv's do automatically scale the image to the proper output resolution of the tv, no matter what the incoming resolution (unless they are incapable of handling that resolution for some reason.)

My point was the IDEALLY, you would avoid scaling and try to obtain a 1:1 pixel map (which you would not be getting if you took a 720p signal and scaled it to 768p), thats all. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up because very few sets are capable of this or you would have to purchase an external scaler that did the work for you in order to maintain the original resolution. without stretching 1 pixel into another pixel in order to be able to fill the screen.

I know a lot of LCD manaufacturers are switching to these higher resolution chips that fall in between 1080p and 720p. I am not sure why exactly. Maybe they found a way to cut cost by adding some more resolution, but I personally have not seen (not saying it does not exist, probably just my ignorance) any 768p content, so right off the bat, you introduce scaling, which to me is just strange. I've seen the results and they are very good, but i just don't understand introducing this continuous scaling into the mix.

I know some of the original lcd units were 1280 x 768 in order to match computer signal formats, which is a 15:9 ratio. Maybe the just added the extra horizontal pixels to utilize these chips and hardware and get them back to a 16:9 format.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

rice0209 said:


> My point was the IDEALLY, you would avoid scaling and try to obtain a 1:1 pixel map (which you would not be getting if you took a 720p signal and scaled it to 768p), thats all. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up because very few sets are capable of this or you would have to purchase an external scaler that did the work for you in order to maintain the original resolution. without stretching 1 pixel into another pixel in order to be able to fill the screen.


You're assuming:

A) No overscan at all; every single pixel of the source image is displayed in the visible screen area of the television (including those areas which often do not contain video data in standard definition signals).

B) Digital input with an all-digital path. Some older HDTVs do not have DVI or HDMI inputs, and some which do convert the signal to analog before the image is sent to the display.

C) Source material resolution matching display resolution. If these two don't match, then someone has to do a conversation at some point in the path anyhow (either before or after sending the signal to the HDTV), rendering the concept of "1x1" moot.


----------



## rice0209 (Oct 11, 2005)

Slordak said:


> You're assuming:
> 
> A) No overscan at all; every single pixel of the source image is displayed in the visible screen area of the television (including those areas which often do not contain video data in standard definition signals).
> 
> ...


A) Yes, I set my overscan to "zero" on my projector so that when i have a true 720p signal, i can get a 1:1 ratio. For channels not in your native resolution, there is nothing you can do as scaling will be introduced.

B) Yes, digital input. DVI or HDMI required.

C) Yes, 1:1 only works when the signal matches your native output of your display. I never suggested it would work otherwise. My point all along is getting the best image when possible. Using your native resolution is more often than not going to give you that picture. In the end it does come down to personal taste as everyone sees things in their own way, but theoretically, matching pixels into a 1:1 situation whenever possibly is the best way to go, in my opinion.

I just hope that 720p keeps becoming more and more the standard. I hate when new shows come out and are still broadcast in 480i. For my 110" screen, no 480 signal looks sharp when stretched over that amount of space, unless I move even further back then the standard, which defeats the purpose of a large screen.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

rice0209 said:


> I just hope that 720p keeps becoming more and more the standard. I hate when new shows come out and are still broadcast in 480i. For my 110" screen, no 480 signal looks sharp when stretched over that amount of space, unless I move even further back then the standard, which defeats the purpose of a large screen.


As far as HD is concerned... 1080i is becoming more and more the standard... as most HD is broadcast in that format. I believe only ABC, FOX, ESPN, and the fledgling MyNetwork (essentially ABC and FOX since the others are owned by the same folks as them, respectively) are the only 720p broadcast channels.


----------



## paulcdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

Just a note to carefully check the settings on your HDTV. On my Samsung 5063 DLP, the "expand" setting does no scaling, but the "wide" setting scales to increase over-scan. With the expand setting I get 2,2,2,2 over-scan on the HDNET test pattern, but I needed to go into service mode to center the picture to avoid seeing artifacts during the vertical retrace interval. (or it's digital equivalent)


----------



## Calvin386 (May 23, 2007)

Well I thought I was going to leave the resolution on 720p and forget about it, but I think I will do a little bit of comparing. 

To compare the two signals, can I use my HD recordings? I guess the question is...Is the scaling done when the DVR records or when the video is sent to the LCD? 

I currently have quite a bit of HD stuff on my receiver but the setting was on 720p when it was recorded.


----------



## SaltiDawg (Aug 30, 2004)

Calvin386 said:


> ...
> To compare the two signals, can I use my HD recordings? I guess the question is...Is the scaling done when the DVR records or when the video is sent to the LCD?
> ...


When it is recorded, it is in the format that was broadcast. Yes, you can use your existing recordings and select various DVR *output* formats to allow comparison.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Calvin386 said:


> Well I thought I was going to leave the resolution on 720p and forget about it, but I think I will do a little bit of comparing.
> 
> To compare the two signals, can I use my HD recordings? I guess the question is...Is the scaling done when the DVR records or when the video is sent to the LCD?
> 
> I currently have quite a bit of HD stuff on my receiver but the setting was on 720p when it was recorded.


The Dish DVR/PVRs record the satellite stream as-received onto the hard drive. The resolution conversions according to your output (480p, 720p, 1080i) happen only to the video output signals from the receiver. Anything you record on your DVR is recorded the same regardless of your video output settings.


----------



## Calvin386 (May 23, 2007)

Good that will make things easier.

Thanks.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

You could also look for the HDNet test pattern and record it for testing.


----------

