# How can you tell what resolution a show is in?



## furjaw (Jul 29, 2007)

I have an HR44 Genie DVR. 
How can you tell what resolution a show is in?
Are some networks still in 720P?
My TV supports 1080P.
Is anything actually in 1080P?
Forget quad definition!


----------



## rmmccann (Apr 16, 2012)

Some networks are broadcast 720p, while others are 1080i. The SD channels are 480i. I believe the only channels broadcasting 1080p are the PPV channels.

I guess I don't know how to from the genie itself what the network resolution is, but I have mine set to native so it auto-switches to whatever the program is being broadcast in. When this happens, my TV tells me.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

furjaw said:


> Is anything actually in 1080P?


1080p in the broadcast world is not what is hyped up to be. I suggest you do so reading on 1080p/24 and 1080p/60.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

furjaw said:


> I have an HR44 Genie DVR.
> *How can you tell what resolution a show is in?*
> Are some networks still in 720P?
> My TV supports 1080P.
> ...


Press the Info button on the remote and look to the right hand side of the Banner for Audio/Video. If necessary, use the arrow buttong to go there and it shows what it is sending out to the TV.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

If you have the receiver set to native and all resolutions checked (well...480p can be left unselected) momentarily pressing the format button once will display the resolution of the channel tuned to.

Current resolutions broadcast by DIRECTV are 480i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p/24 Hz for some PPV.

Note: There is also a special 4K UHD PPV channel for VOD download.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

HoTat2 said:


> If you have the receiver set to native and all resolutions checked (well...480p can be left unselected) momentarily pressing the format button once will display the resolution of the channel tuned to.
> 
> Current resolutions broadcast by DIRECTV are 480i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p/24 Hz for some PPV.
> 
> ...


I "*assumed"* that since the TS has a new HR44 that he was given an *RC7?* remote to go with it and they do not have a Format button.

If the have the *RC6? *remote then they do have a Format button.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Here's another take, one which I prefer: Check your TV's remote for a button that'll show resolution. On one of my Sammy remote, it's called "Info"; on the other I cannot recall (not home now)


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

ESPN, ABC, and FOX broadcast in 720p. NBC and CBS are in 1080i. There are pros and cons for each. 1080i has more pixels per frame, which gives it a sharper picture, but it only changes every other line 60 times per second, so it takes two cycles (1/30th of a second) to change the entire picture. This causes the motion, especially in fast-action sports, to be less smooth than 720p can be. 720p changes all of the lines 60 times per second, so the motion is more smooth than it is with 1080i, but there are fewer pixels per frame, so the picture is not as sharp as 1080i can be. In reality, it is difficult to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i except in live sporting events.

1080p24 is used for PPV movies, which is as good as a movie can be, because film is only 24 frames per second, but it would not be as good for live action as 720p or 1080i. At this point, no one is broadcasting in 1080p60.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I had gone thru my Favorites list that has just over 100 channels ( all HD ) and about 25% of the channels were 720p.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

To put the motion thing into perspective, a baseball traveling at 100 miles per hour is going 146.67 feet per second. With 720p, each time the screen changes, the ball will have jumped 2.44 feet. With 1080i, there would be two balls on the screen at a time 2.44 feet apart, and the ball will have moved 4.89 feet each time the screen changes completely.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

fleckrj said:


> To put the motion thing into perspective, a baseball traveling at 100 miles per hour is going 146.67 feet per second. With 720p, each time the screen changes, the ball will have jumped 2.44 feet. With 1080i, there would be two balls on the screen at a time 2.44 feet apart, and the ball will have moved 4.89 feet each time the screen changes completely.


That sounds horrible!

Another perspective is: with a good quality plasma set, there are no motion artifacts with baseballs, hockey pucks or anything else @ 1080i.

Greater differences in PQ arise from the quality of the production and transmission.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

fleckrj said:


> To put the motion thing into perspective, a baseball traveling at 100 miles per hour is going 146.67 feet per second. With 720p, each time the screen changes, the ball will have jumped 2.44 feet. With 1080i, there would be two balls on the screen at a time 2.44 feet apart, and the ball will have moved 4.89 feet each time the screen changes completely.


Can we actually see this when it takes half a second from when the balls leaves the pitcher's hands until it gets to the catcher's glove?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Can we actually see this when it takes half a second from when the balls leaves the pitcher's hands until it gets to the catcher's glove?


I think for some videophiles and audiophiles, it bugs them if there is something they know is there, even if they can't detect it without equipment.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

I cannot tell the difference, but there are people who can. I used to do studies of mental alertness, and one of the tests was to have two LEDs that would alternate at a faster and faster pace, and the subject would push a button when he could no longer tell that the lights were alternating. The test was run in both directions (i.e., the lights alternate faster and faster, or the lights were both on and then they would alternate extremely fast and slow down, and the subject would push the button when he first could tell that the lights were alternating). We could tell if the subjects were cheating, because sometimes the bulbs were both on at the same time, and if the subject said they were alternating, we would know that the subject was lying. Some drugs, like amphetamines, would improve performance on this test, and some, like alcohol or antihistamines would impair performance. There is a huge difference among individuals as to when they perceived that the lights were alternating, but the results of repeated tests within an individual were pretty consistent. I am at the end of the spectrum that cannot tell until the alternation gets relatively slow, but others can see the difference at a much higher rate than I can.

Similarly, some people can see the individual blades on a fan or propeller at a higher speed than others. For me, they begin to blur together at a relatively slow speed.

Some people can tell the difference in motion between 720p and 1080i, but most cannot. It was a conscious decision, though, on the part of ABC/ESPN to go with 720p instead of 1080i because they felt that 720p is better for fast action. If you advance the picture frame by frame on a replay (as is done when officials review plays), it is easy to tell the difference.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

fleckrj said:


> To put the motion thing into perspective, a baseball traveling at 100 miles per hour is going 146.67 feet per second. With 720p, each time the screen changes, the ball will have jumped 2.44 feet. With 1080i, there would be two balls on the screen at a time 2.44 feet apart, and the ball will have moved 4.89 feet each time the screen changes completely.


That's a great example. Thanks. Of course, the 2.4 feet is typically shown from relatively straight on so the 2.4 feet difference when scaled down to a 50 inch TV is small but it still illustrates the issue very clearly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rmmccann said:


> The SD channels are 480i.


DIRECTV SD channels are assumed by some to be 480x480 at best. Full frame NTSC SD was 525 lines.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> That's a great example. Thanks. Of course, the 2.4 feet is typically shown from relatively straight on so the 2.4 feet difference when scaled down to a 50 inch TV is small but it still illustrates the issue very clearly.


But is "the issue" an issue on a good screen?


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

HoTat2 said:


> If you have the receiver set to native and all resolutions checked (well...480p can be left unselected) momentarily pressing the format button once will display the resolution of the channel tuned to.
> 
> Current resolutions broadcast by DIRECTV are 480i, 720p, 1080i, and 1080p/24 Hz for some PPV.
> 
> ...


Interesting. My Genie won't let me select 480i, only 480p. It claims my TV doesn't support 480i... but it does OTA. Oh well.

There is no way to know what resolution a SHOW is specifically shot in, only what the channel is broadcasting.

Rough guide:

All Disney (ESPN, Disney, most local ABC) 720p. All Fox channels (FX, FS1, most - if not all - local Fox) are also 720p.
All NBC, Discovery, Viacom are 1080i.
The only linear 1080p is channel 125, which barely counts.

The rest are hit and miss.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"linear 1080p"? Are you sure? What is the refresh rate? 24 fps?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

tonyd79 said:


> *That's a great example.* Thanks. Of course, the 2.4 feet is typically shown from relatively straight on so the 2.4 feet difference when scaled down to a 50 inch TV is small but it still illustrates the issue very clearly.


not good at all - he must recalculate the distance on HIS tv screen!


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

P Smith said:


> "linear 1080p"? Are you sure? What is the refresh rate? 24 fps?


Yes, the HD Cinema previews channel on 125 and many of the HD Cinema PPV channels are 1080p 24fps


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

P Smith said:


> not good at all - he must recalculate the distance on HIS tv screen!


It is an example of how the movement is portrayed. Don't get tied up in the distances. Use it as a single object example but use it for any motion across a screen, including a basketball pass across the whole screen, a receiver running down the field and the background passing by. A baseball bang thrown across the infield. Extrapolate from the illustration.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> But is "the issue" an issue on a good screen?


As with everything else, a good screen can only show the information that is provided to it. On film, fast moving objects are blurs, because the movement occurs while the shutter is open. Video cameras can be (but do not have to be) much faster than film, so it is possible to see the discrete jumps in a fast moving object. The best display is going to show the image that it receives, so it is the camera, and not the display, that will determine whether the motion is blurred or jerky.

Although baseball, football, and basketball are allowed to use replay to overturn calls made on the field under certain circumstances, the rules for swimming specifically prohibit the use of video replay. I was a nationally certified swimming referee for more than 20 years. The difference between a legal take-off on a relay or an early take-off is less than 1/100th of a second. A trained observer can see the difference, but the best that can be shown on video is a difference of 1/60th of a second. Similarly, the finish is judged down to 1/100th of a second, but the best that video can show is 1/60th of a second. The electronic timing systems and electronic relay take-off systems can easily record down to 1/1000th of a second, but sometimes they malfunction, and very few pools have electronic relay take-off systems. It is the eye of the judges that make the determination, and a trained judge is far better than 720p.

Even at the relatively slow speed that elite distance swimmers go (~ 2 mph), 1/100 of a second would be 0.352", and 1/60 of a second is 0.587". Elite sprinters go a little over 5 mph or about 90 inches per second, so 1/100 of a second would be 0.90", and 1/60 of a second would be 1.50". A trained judge can easily tell when swimmers are more than 1/100th of a second apart, but video cannot.

Frame-by-frame of finishes in cycling events are even more dramatic. A professional cyclist can easily be going 45 mph at the finish, so one frame (1/60th of a second) would be 13.2" It is impossible to judge a close finish if one had to rely on video.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

"As with everything else, a good screen can only show the information that is provided to it." Yes, but how the information is processed and how the screen handles it varies significantly among manufacturers and lines within their offerings. 

Interesting comments on visual judging vs. video "assist". Certainly 'normal' frame rates of a mere 1/60th won't work for very tight finishes! I am amazed at some of the slo-mo shown these days, with frame rates in excess of 500fps.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

P Smith said:


> "linear 1080p"? Are you sure? What is the refresh rate? 24 fps?


ya. 24

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> I am amazed at some of the slo-mo shown these days, with frame rates in excess of 500fps.


There's a guy on Youtube (Richard Ryan, RatedRR) that is building camera arrays with frame rates around 1 million fps. He regularly powders brand new iPhones and other stuff with VERY high-powered rifles.

Vision Research offers a Phantom V711 model that claims 1.4 million FPS.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

harsh said:


> There's a guy on Youtube (Richard Ryan, RatedRR) that is building camera arrays with frame rates around 1 million fps. He regularly powders brand new iPhones and other stuff with VERY high-powered rifles.
> 
> Vision Research offers a Phantom V711 model that claims 1.4 million FPS.


WOW !
The NHRA drag racing has been using a super slo mo that does 1,500 fps for a couple of years now. It is incredible.
You can see each cylinder fire of a full throttle drag racer or the wrinkles the torque is putting in the sidewalls of the tires.
.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Press the Info button on the remote and look to the right hand side of the Banner for Audio/Video. If necessary, use the arrow buttong to go there and it shows what it is sending out to the TV.


My plasmas all have an info button that displays the resolution received. My son's LG LCD has a lot more info than the plasmas do, and I'd be looking at the TVs for that info. Also, the lights on the front panel of the DVR should show you what resolution the DVR's putting out.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> ESPN, ABC, and FOX broadcast in 720p. NBC and CBS are in 1080i. There are pros and cons for each. 1080i has more pixels per frame, which gives it a sharper picture, but it only changes every other line 60 times per second, so it takes two cycles (1/30th of a second) to change the entire picture. This causes the motion, especially in fast-action sports, to be less smooth than 720p can be. 720p changes all of the lines 60 times per second, so the motion is more smooth than it is with 1080i, but there are fewer pixels per frame, so the picture is not as sharp as 1080i can be. _*In reality, it is difficult to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i except in live sporting events.*_
> 
> 1080p24 is used for PPV movies, which is as good as a movie can be, because film is only 24 frames per second, but it would not be as good for live action as 720p or 1080i. At this point, no one is broadcasting in 1080p60.


Not on a plasma. I can tell right away when a channel's in 720p. Haven't tried it on my son's LCD, he has a strange hook up with an XBox that I don't like fooling around with.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> That sounds horrible!
> 
> Another perspective is: with a good quality plasma set, there are no motion artifacts with baseballs, hockey pucks or anything else @ 1080i.
> 
> Greater differences in PQ arise from the quality of the production and transmission.


That's why we have plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Can we actually see this when it takes half a second from when the balls leaves the pitcher's hands until it gets to the catcher's glove?


At a friend's house with a Sony 40" 1080p LCD that cost him $2500, I watched Derek Jeter do what looked like a stumbling run to second base. When I asked him how he could put up with that he just said, "We like it." One of those guys who always buys the best (in his mind). To make things worse, he bought another one when the prices came down!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> But is "the issue" an issue on a good screen?


No, that's why _*we*_ can't see "the issue". And I watch a lot of baseball and football.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

fleckrj said:


> To put the motion thing into perspective, a baseball traveling at 100 miles per hour is going 146.67 feet per second. With 720p, each time the screen changes, the ball will have jumped 2.44 feet. With 1080i, there would be two balls on the screen at a time 2.44 feet apart, and the ball will have moved 4.89 feet each time the screen changes completely.


Almost modern TVs deinterlace 1080i to 1080p30. There are never "two balls on the screen". Film it a smartphone that can do 240 fps like the iPhone 6 and you'll see.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Not on a plasma. I can tell right away when a channel's in 720p. Haven't tried it on my son's LCD, he has a strange hook up with an XBox that I don't like fooling around with.


You're the only person I've ever heard say 720p is inferior on a plasma for sports. Do you experience this on ESPN, or just your locals? I find 720p superior for sports on both 720p and 1080p plasmas, because of the higher frame rate. I suppose it could depend somewhat on the sports you watch, and what sort of things you notice - a slow moving sport like golf or baseball doesn't get much help from the higher frame rate 98% of the time, but you'd notice the reduced resolution in the grass or crowd during the breaks between brief moments of fast action.

720p can be a problem on older or low end LCDs because they can't switch the individual LCDs 60 times per second across the full range of luminescence, so there's 'ghosting' where you sometimes see a slight afterimage when something's moving quickly across the screen. With 1080i that's not a problem because it only has to switch at 30 times per second. For pre 2010 and even current bargain basement LCDs, 1080i is better for sports only because of the limitation of the panel.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Rich said:


> Not on a plasma. I can tell right away when a channel's in 720p. Haven't tried it on my son's LCD, he has a strange hook up with an XBox that I don't like fooling around with.
> 
> Rich


Wait. You are always touting plasma as so much better yet when you watch 720p, it looks bad? That does not sound like an advantage to me.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> You're the only person I've ever heard say 720p is inferior on a plasma for sports. Do you experience this on ESPN, or just your locals? I find 720p superior for sports on both 720p and 1080p plasmas, because of the higher frame rate. << Snipped bits out >>


I'd go along with 1080i being of better PQ for everything including fast moving sports than 720p on my Sammy plasma. I can't stretch that to all Sammys from my own experience, though. Nor to archery events! 

That said, other variables frequently trump that. I've seen 720 productions that knock your socks off and 1080 ones that are barely SD, on the same day!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You're the only person I've ever heard say 720p is inferior on a plasma for sports. Do you experience this on ESPN, or just your locals? I find 720p superior for sports on both 720p and 1080p plasmas, because of the higher frame rate. I suppose it could depend somewhat on the sports you watch, and what sort of things you notice - _*a slow moving sport like golf or baseball *_doesn't get much help from the higher frame rate 98% of the time, but you'd notice the reduced resolution in the grass or crowd during the breaks between brief moments of fast action.
> 
> 720p can be a problem on older or low end LCDs because they can't switch the individual LCDs 60 times per second across the full range of luminescence, so there's 'ghosting' where you sometimes see a slight afterimage when something's moving quickly across the screen. With 1080i that's not a problem because it only has to switch at 30 times per second. For pre 2010 and even current bargain basement LCDs, 1080i is better for sports only because of the limitation of the panel.


When it comes to action, I see no difference in 720p or 1080i on my Panny plasmas. What I see is an inferior picture in 720p. And I usually see it right away. Sports and regular content. The sports I watch are boxing, baseball and football. I don't think of golf as a sport, I think it's an activity. Baseball might seem like a slow moving sport, but when the ball is hit to someone or someone is running the bases it's just as quick as any other sport. And it's the most explosive sport I've ever played. I know I've been hurt more playing BB than in any other sport. That comes from standing around and suddenly having to make a play or run out a ball.

I didn't buy all those plasmas and ignore the LCDs without looking at both first. It wasn't about money, it was about PQ and the juddering of the LCDs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Wait. You are always touting plasma as so much better yet when you watch 720p, it looks bad? That does not sound like an advantage to me.


I try to avoid the 720p channels for regular content and wait for them to get on NF or Amazon. Or I just suffer thru the 720p content. Nothing I can do about the BB and boxing and football games, but the PQ is certainly inferior. On the other hand, my present choice of a good streaming box is the Fire TV box. That sends everything out in 1080p and most content is far superior to anything I get on D*. In other words the better the source, the better the PQ. I hardly watch D* by myself anymore, I've gotten used to the 1080p streaming PQ and PQ is very important to me. I didn't know a 1080p plasma could put out such a good picture when I bought mine, but now I gotta wonder if it can get any better.

When Roku was streaming in 720p, I got much better PQ than D*'s 720p, so I know it can be at least decent. The only disadvantage I see in plasmas is the energy consumption. There is a definite advantage with an LCD in that regard. That's really the only advantage I've ever seen. I have seen Sony LCDs that were very expensive and did have really good PQ, but I've never seen a Panny plasma next to a Sony LCD, so I can't really say which is better. But I'm not gonna spend six or seven grand on a Sony to get a comparable picture to a plasma that I can get at a whole lot less than the Sony.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I'd go along with 1080i being of better PQ for everything including fast moving sports than 720p on my Sammy plasma. I can't stretch that to all Sammys from my own experience, though. Nor to archery events!
> 
> That said, other variables frequently trump that. I've seen 720 productions that knock your socks off and 1080 ones that are barely SD, on the same day!


I was surprised at how good the 720p was when we watched _24: Live Another Day_. Just goes to show that Fox can put out a good 720p picture if they want to.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Rich said:


> When it comes to action, I see no difference in 720p or 1080i on my Panny plasmas. What I see is an inferior picture in 720p. And I usually see it right away. Sports and regular content. The sports I watch are boxing, baseball and football. I don't think of golf as a sport, I think it's an activity. Baseball might seem like a slow moving sport, but when the ball is hit to someone or someone is running the bases it's just as quick as any other sport. And it's the most explosive sport I've ever played. I know I've been hurt more playing BB than in any other sport. That comes from standing around and suddenly having to make a play or run out a ball.
> 
> I didn't buy all those plasmas and ignore the LCDs without looking at both first. It wasn't about money, it was about PQ and the juddering of the LCDs.
> 
> Rich


Most baseballs are hit or pitched at 100 mph or less. Golf balls are usually traveling in the 120 mph range. If or when you watch golf the next time try to pay attention to how much those guys can go over trees, around trees, curve the ball left or right depending on where they want it to go. Watch to see that they can hit it and make it bounce forward or make it spin back as they see a need for it.
Is it slow, YES.
If you don't like it just look at the scenery since a lot of the courses are absolutely beautiful.
I watch golf but I do not watch baseball, except the world series sometimes and the same with football.

I have a 46" lcd that I run on 720p and 1080i with Native ON. I do not see a difference in the 2 pictures. I do see a difference in a lot of shows on some channels that look almost like SD programming and worse. I blame this on who shot it or manipulated it after it was show.


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> DIRECTV SD channels are assumed by some to be 480x480 at best. Full frame NTSC SD was 525 lines.


But not all of those 525 lines are displayed. Only 480 have ever been shown. The 483 - 540 lines are called the vertical blanking interval and allow for vertical synchronization and retrace.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

alnielsen said:


> But not all of those 525 lines are displayed. Only 480 have ever been shown. The 483 - 540 lines are called the vertical blanking interval and allow for vertical synchronization and retrace.


If he's right about them being 480x480 the problem is that it should be 640x480. Sort of like Dish's so-called HD Lite where they compress 1280x1080 or whatever instead of the full 1920x1080 for 1080i (not sure if they mess with 720p as well or not)

Directv only compromises the quality of the MPEG2 SD, the MPEG4 SD seems to be much better. They just don't have enough bandwidth for all the MPEG2 SD channels, but making them crappy should help push people to upgrade to HD so there are fewer laggards they have to force when they want to shut it down


----------

