# DISH and 1080P



## Nightmare (Nov 3, 2002)

What is the deal with DISH and 1080P?

I tried to search, but most of the postings are 6 months old.

I don't have a 1080P TV, but my mom just purchased one. I went to the Menu on her box, but there is no option for 1080P on her VIP722.

Is this only for the VOD channels?

Will the 922 be any different?

Thanks


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I am not a Dish client, but there are no regular channels in 1080P... only VOD or PPV.

Larry


----------



## garys (Nov 4, 2005)

Only the odd VOD channel is 1080p, doubt the 922 will be any different. If you want to make use of 1080p, your best bet would be a BluRay dvd player.


----------



## HiDefRev (Jan 15, 2007)

Right. Dish only shows ONE 1080p program on the VOD channel 501. BUT, your HDTV MUST be capable of showing 1080p/24. Most are NOT capble of 24fps at this time, but rather show 1080p/60. If yours is capable of 1080p/24, it will say so prominently. It depends on the make and model of your HDTV.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Nightmare said:


> What is the deal with DISH and 1080P?
> 
> *I tried to search, but most of the postings are 6 months old.*
> 
> ...


Nothing changed since that !


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The 501 VOD channel usually has just the one 1080p HD movie, that changes semi-frequently...

BUT, Dish also has some TV programs available in 1080p via their DishOnline menu system as long as you have an Internet connection to your receiver.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

Hate to resurrect an old thread, but now that I have two 722s and HD, I've been wondering the same thing. Any idea when Dish Network will start offering 1080p television shows. I understand there is 1080p VOD, but I could care less about that. 

To be honest, I was shocked to see in 2009 that the 722's highest resolution is only 1080i. How old is 1080p now anyway? :shrug:


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Seriously? 

There ARE no television broadcasts in 1080p. There simply aren't. 1080i is the highest broadcast resolution, and thus it's the highest TV resolution you can receive.

720p, 1080i and 1080p are all the same "age", though none of them are 'old' by any means.

You want 1080p, use the VOD, On Demand or buy a Bluray player.


----------



## spaceman1202 (Nov 10, 2009)

RasputinAXP said:


> Seriously?
> 
> There ARE no television broadcasts in 1080p. There simply aren't. 1080i is the highest broadcast resolution, and thus it's the highest TV resolution you can receive.
> 
> ...


Exactly. I understand Blueray is the only way to get true 1080.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

Seriously? YES. Doing a little research on the 'net, and you find that 1080p televisions have been available since at least 2006; and it doesn't look like we will make it by 2010 so that will be four years.

FOUR years. In technology terms that is ANCIENT. The codec issues should have long been resolved by now. Is this just another case of cable companies dragging their derrieres as usual like they have done with cable card technology?

BTW, yes I already have Blu-ray as well as using TVersity in 1080p. That is all irrelevant to why there are no 1080p broadcast stations at the moment so I am not sure why you even brought it up.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Nightmare said:


> What is the deal with DISH and 1080P?
> 
> I tried to search, but most of the postings are 6 months old.
> 
> ...


No broadcasters have 1080p yet.. Televison stations, networks, channels havn't all gone 1080i yet. It might take 10 years before broadcasters even think of 1080p. Get your mom a Blu-ray.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

1080p is not enough of an improvement to warrant the expense that it would be to use it in broadcasting - a dollar for a doughnut.

1080p is an advertising gimmick, not a technical marvel.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The OTA broadcast standard does include 1080p at 24fps... but that wouldn't really be any different than the current 1080i at 30fps... aside from a slight bandwidth savings.

So channels could broadcast in 1080 24fps... but none so far have chosen to do so... and unless and until someone does, there is no reason for Dish or DirecTV or cable to worry about it.

The fact that Dish/DirecTV have any 1080p VOD at all is really more of a novelty "we can do this" sort of thing at the moment... and really, for the price of most VOD you could have rented several Netflix movies OR be close to buying the Blu-ray to own.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> 1080p is not enough of an improvement to warrant the expense that it would be to use it in broadcasting - a dollar for a doughnut.
> 
> 1080p is an advertising gimmick, not a technical marvel.


And there are folks who would say the same thing about high def tv's vs regular. But I'm not so sure everyone agrees with you that 1080i is just "an advertising gimmick":

FROM CNET:

Why 1080p is theoretically better than 1080i?

1080i, the former king of the HDTV hill, actually boasts an identical 1,920x1,080 resolution but conveys the images in an interlaced format (the i in 1080i). In a tube-based television, otherwise known as a CRT, 1080i sources get "painted" on the screen sequentially: the odd-numbered lines of resolution appear on your screen first, followed by the even-numbered lines--all within 1/30 of a second. Progressive-scan formats such as 480p, 720p, and 1080p convey all of the lines of resolution sequentially in a single pass, which makes for a smoother, cleaner image, especially with sports and other motion-intensive content. As opposed to tubes, microdisplays (DLP, LCoS, and LCD rear-projection) and other fixed-pixel TVs, including plasma and LCD flat-panel, are inherently progressive in nature, so when the incoming source is interlaced, as 1080i is, they convert it to progressive scan for display.

FROM ABOUT.COM HOME THEATER

In 1080i each frame of video is sent or displayed in alternative fields. The fields in 1080i are composed of 540 rows of pixels or lines of pixels running from the top to the bottom of the screen, with the odd fields displayed first and the even fields displayed second. Together, both fields create a full frame, made up of all 1,080 pixel rows or lines, every 30th of a second.

In 1080p, each frame of video is sent or displayed progressively. This means that both the odd and even fields (all 1,080 pixel rows or pixel lines) that make up the full frame are displayed together. This results in a smoother looking image, with less motion artifacts and jagged edges.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Swampthing said:


> And there are folks who would say the same thing about high def tv's vs regular. But I'm not so sure everyone agrees with you that 1080i is just "an advertising gimmick":
> 
> FROM CNET:
> 
> ...


Nobody is argueing about 1080p being better than 1080i. It is hands down, Progressive is always superior to interlacing, always has been and always will be.
What people are saying is with the LACK of 1080p broadcasting and sources, 1080p is really technology that you are paying for but don't get the advantage of unless you have 1080p device like a Blu-Ray. 
When you are not watching something from a 1080p device, as there are currently NO 1080p broadcast, 1080p is overkill, and as not everybody has a 1080p device, 1080p is really about marketing and maybe future proofing yourself down the road to be ready for when there are actual 1080p broadcasts, granted with todays technology and life cycles of products, future proofing is really a grasping straw, as an arguement for 1080p. This is all about broadcasting though, and doesn't cover, those building a HUGE BluRay system.

There is another forum on this site were you could discuss, with today's broadcasts, are 1080p TV's really worth thier price? Or is 720p TV a better bang for the dollar over a 1080i or 1080p TV. Granted I would vote for 1080p over 1080i, and 720p over 1080i as well.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

On the contrary GrumpyBear... yes, someone above said *1080p* is just an "advertising gimmick" which definitely infers it is not better. But this is just a lot of distraction and misdirection from the original question here... so let's get back to it:

Does anyone know *why *broadcasters are lagging several years in adopting the necessary codecs for 1080p broadcast transmissions? Were they waiting on the whole "digital tv" transition? I've read that it wouldn't be difficult to broadcast material in 1080p/24 if it came from a film source, but that's only being done on a few movies in video on demand. Is it really that difficult to broadcast 1080p?

It's a bit ironic that all these televisions are being pushed "with 1080p" yet when the person goes home and installs the tv, the best they will get for broadcast is 1080i... nearly four years after it was introduced.

Is there a *timetable *for 1080p from broadcasters? Or are they just satisfied with 1080i and have no plans whatsoever to move forward?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Those TV manufacturers suggest you will buy BR player and BR disks to take advantage of your 1080p TV set.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Swampthing said:


> Hate to resurrect an old thread, but now that I have two 722s and HD, I've been wondering the same thing. Any idea when Dish Network will start offering 1080p television shows. I understand there is 1080p VOD, but I could care less about that.
> 
> To be honest, I was shocked to see in 2009 that the 722's highest resolution is only 1080i. How old is 1080p now anyway? :shrug:


Actually back to the Original question. DISH has nothing to do with 1080p broadcasts. 
That is a Broadcasters issue.

As a broadcaster you may want to answer these questions.
Since 1080p has NO Extra resolution over 1080i, just less flicker. As a broadcaster, can you justify the expense to upgrade and change broadcasts from
720p and 1080i to 1080p, to elminate flicker, for the smallest segment of the TV market? As a Broadcaster, that has just made the all digital tranistion and had to wait extra years, because of MILLIONS of users, still recieve thier TV OTA, and still don't have HD TV, justify the expense of going all 1080p fully knowing that vast majority of users don't have 1080p? 
As a Broadcaster is it really worth the costs, since most users have HDTV's smaller than 55"'s and its really hard for the Avg users to tell the difference.
As a Broadcaster do you jump for every small upgrade or do you wait until the next generation of TV's and Monitors that are already being worked on, and upgrade then? 2160p is just around the corner!

All of this is NOT Dish Networks, or any carriers issue. Its all up to the Broadasters. 
As for the Marketing gimmick, it is a marketing gimmick, and has nothing to do with rather its better or not.
The marketing is saying that 1080p is better. The marketing just forgets to tell you, that the 1080p sources are hardware driven ie Blu-ray or PPV, and 
that there are NO 1080p broadcasts. Hence the gimmick, here is something better, just little(you have to buy more equipment, or Pay to view it once) to no support, there are NO Free sources for the extra feature.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Following up on GrumpyBear's above post the stations in Houston that broadcast in 1080i are CBS, CW, NBC, and PBS. In 720p are ABC, Fox, and MyNetwork.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Swampthing said:


> Is there a *timetable *for 1080p from broadcasters? Or are they just satisfied with 1080i and have no plans whatsoever to move forward?


Television was invented in the 1930s. Color Television was created in the late 1960s, as an extension/modification of the 1930's standard. ATSC, which was the standard for both digital, in both SD and HD, became formally adopted in 1996 by the FCC, and didn't become the standard for broadcasting in the US until this year, 2009. As you can see, the wheels turn very slowly in the broadcast world.

Broadcasters spent about 15 years, from the mid 80s through the end of the 1990s, agreeing upon the standards for digital broadcasting before a set of standards were set, and those standards for the US were called the ATSC standard, and included HD resolutions of 720p and 1080i, but NOT 1080p. There are NO plans to increase broadcast TV over 1080i in the foreseeable future.

Having said that, "alternative" TV sources like cable and satellite potentially have the capability to transmit in 1080p (specifically 1080/24p, but generally not 1080/60p), but it would only be possible to do so if they had access to content from the various networks in this format. But those networks spent hundreds of millions of dollars to replace their equipment with either 720p or 1080i-based equipment, and probably need 20+ years to recoup that investment. No one is in any hurry to throw all of that new gear away and move to a standard that, even today, only a minority of people's equipment supports.

Even though ATSC tuners are required to support 1080/24p, even though the TV itself may not be able to display it without conversion, any future 1080/24p broadcasts were only theoretical; requiring this support was "future-proofing" but not a sign that broadcasting was actually moving that way.

1080p was added to consumer displays for two main reasons: to enable the displays to be used as computer displays, and to support LOCAL devices, such as Blu-Ray players and video game consoles, that are hardwired and not limited to the ATSC broadcast standards.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

BattleZone said:


> "future-proofing"


Beginning to hate that term. VERY accurate term with your post. 
To many manufactures are trying to use that term though.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

GrumpyBear said:


> As a broadcaster you may want to answer these questions....


I can see where you got the name Grumpy! Wow. Relax! I am not challenging your birthright or something :lol:

No one is asking broadcasters to jump on a technology 15 minutes after it is introduced, but we are talking about FOUR years. And no one said anything about a complete transition - even Dish and other HD providers still sell standard def as part of the high def packages. Not sure where you got the idea had to be all or nothing. But there SHOULD be more visible progress by now. What timetable would you propose? 5, 7, 8, 9 years?

The picture you paint makes it sound like it's all about money. Don't worry, these companies make billions in profit every year. But it is also about keeping up with the competition. *If Dish Network were to pull off 1080p television broadcasting before anyone else and use it in marketing*, just WATCH how fast DirecTV and all the other cable companies would suddenly find that money to upgrade. Keep in mind, the broadcasters did not go willingly to digital cable either, they went kicking and screaming as well. If Congress didn't mandate it, I can guarantee you we would still all be on analog broadcasting. Just look at how they dragged their feet and fought cable card technology when the result is they would lose those box rental fees.

Hence the original question: where is Dish with 1080p broadcasting?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Swampthing said:


> I can see where you got the name Grumpy! Wow. Relax! I am not challenging your birthright or something :lol:
> 
> No one is asking broadcasters to jump on a technology 15 minutes after it is introduced, but we are talking about FOUR years. And no one said anything about a complete transition - even Dish and other HD providers still sell standard def as part of the high def packages. Not sure where you got the idea had to be all or nothing. But there SHOULD be more visible progress by now. What timetable would you propose? 5, 7, 8, 9 years?
> 
> ...


Hehehehe
Ok, Direct and Dish do Broadcast in 1080P, its called PPV.
Neither Dish nor Direct Broadcast anything, they are carriers. 
Dish has nothing to Broadcast, except PPV(can't count VOD, as its a download)
Dish has no TV Stations, they only have agreements to carry a channels broadcast.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> The OTA broadcast standard does include 1080p at 24fps... but that wouldn't really be any different than the current 1080i at 30fps... aside from a slight bandwidth savings.


ATSC standard A/53 indeed supports 1080p at 30 frames per second. It just isn't used.


> So channels could broadcast in 1080 24fps... but none so far have chosen to do so... and unless and until someone does, there is no reason for Dish or DirecTV or cable to worry about it.


The point that has been made above (and ignored by quite a few) is that many (not necessarily most) TVs cannot handle 1080p at 24 frames per second.

I think we can take for granted that until almost all televisions in use support 1080p at 24 frames per second (even if not natively), nobody is going to broadcast in that format.

Down the road there will surely be bitter debates about "native passthrough" related to this and it will finally dawn on everyone that "native passthrough" isn't really what it seems.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Dishnetwork and DirecTV and Cable are delivery services not content providers IMHO. My suspicion is that they are losing money on 1080P content since it most likely has to be locally generated.

Thus advertising 1080p since it is a fractional part of the content delivered is an advertising gimmick as I see it.

Keep in mind that lots of people are buying 32" HDTV sets or smaller. They probably can not even see the difference between 720p or 1080i. I know I can't see the difference on my 32" HDTV.

HDTV can be many resolutions and does not even have to be 16:9 AR. And don't even get me started on the butchered 16:9 content on many channels where it is stretch-O-Visioned or cropped to fill the screen. Or channel logos that are in the 4:3 AR position even on a 16:9 broadcast so they can just crop it to 4:3 also.

Be grateful for the 1080p you can get. It wasn't all that far back that HD content was limited to a few channels part time.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

If you really want to get technical, if you're using an LCD or plasma TV, you're already watching a 1080p broadcast. They're inherently progressive.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Also missing the point is... it isn't up to Dish to broadcast channels in 1080p... It's up to the channels to broadcast in 1080p... then for Dish to carry them.

Dish isn't creating the channels they carry... they just carry them.

As others have noted, not all TVs support 1080p at 24fps... and 1080p at either 24 or 30 fps offers no improvement over 1080i 30(60) fps... Only 1080p at 60fps would be a perceivable difference... and not even Blu rays are offering that as an option!

So for the most part, the TVs having that capability is just the dreaded "futureproofing"... but some videogames on XBox360 or PS3 might support 1080p 60fps.

Don't hold your breath waiting for broadcast/cable/satellite channels to be 1080p any time soon. There's no advantage to be gained for the cost it would take to do it.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

If Dish is offering some Video on Demand movies in 1080p, could they make a similar deal with the networks to serve "TV on Demand" in 1080p if they were given the source material? Just curious since I seem to recall Comcast had some sort of TV on Demand feature...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RasputinAXP said:


> If you really want to get technical, if you're using an LCD or plasma TV, you're already watching a 1080p broadcast. They're inherently progressive.


This is a misrepresentation of the facts. 1080i content is "converted" _by the TV_ for display on a 1080p TV. As such, it is not exactly the same as what is broadcast.

Many better televisions do interpolation on the input signal to produce what they hope will be a more desirable picture than displaying the interlaced picture directly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Swampthing said:


> If Dish is offering some Video on Demand movies in 1080p, could they make a similar deal with the networks to serve "TV on Demand" in 1080p if they were given the source material? Just curious since I seem to recall Comcast had some sort of TV on Demand feature...


They could, but since the networks aren't yet making 1080p content available, this is not possible. Most (if not all) 1080p content that is currently available is offered apart from the linear programming channels. To date, most of it has been first-run movies offered as PPV.

The channels are used to doing things in the video domain with its ~30 frame per second rate. It works best with the technology that most televisions currently use versus the slower 24 frame per second rate.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

On the TV-on-Demand front... A&E was offering up 1080p episodes of the Beast I think via On Demand... but I'm not sure what will happen to that show since the main star passed away during the hiatus.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Swampthing said:


> On the contrary GrumpyBear... yes, someone above said 1080i is just an "advertising gimmick" which definitely infers it is not better. But this is just a lot of distraction and misdirection from the original question here... so let's get back to it:
> 
> Does anyone know *why *broadcasters are lagging several years in adopting the necessary codecs for 1080p broadcast transmissions? Were they waiting on the whole "digital tv" transition? I've read that it wouldn't be difficult to broadcast material in 1080p/24 if it came from a film source, but that's only being done on a few movies in video on demand. Is it really that difficult to broadcast 1080p?
> 
> ...


There are no plans for 1080p.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Please reread the last line of my last post and then do not misquote me again, compounding your errors.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> 1080p is an advertising gimmick, not a technical marvel.


I offer for your reading pleasure, the last line of your post. You said it was an *advertising gimmick*, not me or anyone else in the room. If that is not what you meant to say, you should heartily reconsider using the "preview post" button before posting to avoid making more threats and wild accusations of misquoting in the future. :scratchin :nono2:


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

Swampthing said:


> On the contrary GrumpyBear... yes, someone above said *1080i* is just an "advertising gimmick" which definitely infers it is not better.


Hence the claim of misquoting. No one said that 1080*i* was an advertising gimmick, but 1080*p*. The difference between 1080i and 1080p is not detectable to the human eye on any set less than 60", and even then you have to sit closer than most people find comfortable. So, for 99% of the population, there is no difference, yet manufacturers try to convince them to spend more on a 1080p set. This is the very definition of an advertising gimmick.

To ask broadcasters to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their equipment so less than 1% of their audience can take full advantage of the capabilities of their TVs is not reasonable, especially when they all just spent millions to go digital in the first place. As the current generation of gear wears out, they may replace it with 1080p stuff, but I'm not holding my breath, or running out to buy a 1080p set.


----------



## Swampthing (Apr 24, 2002)

Hence nothing. I have no quotes around the words 1080i, and it was an obvious typo mistake which I have corrected. If you read my subsequent posts - including the ones stating why 1080p is better from CNET and About.com - you know exactly what I meant and that it was obviously just a typing mistake. 

The statement that was questioned is whether or not 1080p had ever been stated to be an advertising gimmick, and the author obviously forgot that is exactly what he said. 

Just curious, what is the source of the stats you cite indicating less than 1% of the "audience" has 1080p after five years of 1080p televisions and monitors being available? If those stats were really that low, I would expect Best Buy to start liquidating their 1080p tvs tomorrow because after five years they still haven't caught on...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Swampthing said:


> Hence nothing. I have no quotes around the words 1080i, and it was an obvious typo mistake which I have corrected. If you read my subsequent posts, you know exactly what I meant and that it was obviously just a typing mistake.
> 
> The statement that was questioned is whether or not 1080p had ever been stated to be an advertising gimmick, and the author obviously forgot that is exactly what he said.
> 
> Just curious, what stats are you citing which indicate less than 1% of the "audience" has 1080p after five years of 1080p televisions and monitors being available? If those stats were really that low, I would expect Best Buy to start liquidating their 1080p tvs tomorrow because after five years they still haven't caught on...


*Gimmick*= an important feature that is not immediately apparent. Gimmick doesn't mean something is inferior. So as you can see NOBODY said 1080p was INFERIOR, they called it a Gimmick. Your misquote had nothing to do with a typo, your misquote, was concluding that calling 1080p a marketing gimmick, was calling 1080p inferior. Poster clearly said it was more Marketing, than a _technical marvel_, never did the poster call it inferior.

We will take you as a typical user of 1080p, you are not interested in PPV's at 1080p, as you have already posted that. You are looking for Network Broadcasts at 1080p, something that doesn't exist, hence the Gimmick about 1080p, a feature that isn't apparent, as THERE are NO BROADCAST to support the feature.

Only way for 1080p to be a feature that is *apparent* on your HDTV, is to Pay for 1080p PPV's or to have extra hardware ie HD-DVD player or Blu-ray. Something they don't tell you in the advertisements, for 1080p TV's, is you need extra equipment to use 1080p ie a *Gimmick*  a trick or device used to attract business or attention )

Without External support, or pay as you go, 1080p is a important feature that *IS NOT* immediatly apparent i.e a *GIMMICK*.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

In the stores I can see on a top-of-the-line 46" 1080p plasma display the difference between a broadcast TV signal and a high-quality Blu-Ray movie coming from a high quality Blu-Ray player. I do have to be careful not to get on the screen skin oil from the end of my nose, but I can see it.

Dish Network offers you the opportunity to watch 1080p movies from somewhat near Blu-Ray quality digital recordings downloaded onto your DVR's hard drive. Not one TV channel, broadcast or cable, offers 1080p programming, not even HDNet, HBO, Showtime or Starz. And since technology at this point in time would require satellite and cable companies to give up more bandwidth to transmit a not-overly-compressed high quality real-time 1080p signal, you aren't likely see that soon.

If you watch movies on a 72" display, you would never, ever watch them from a TV channel of any kind. If you have a special alien-life-form eye allowing you to see the difference between 1080p and 1080i on a 27" display, you too should never ever watch movies from a TV channel.

In either case, you will be greatly disappointed watching TV channels if the issue of primary importance to you is the detail definition of the picture that appear on your display. I don't know why you would even subscribe to Dish Network, so I don't understand the discussion in this thread.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

Swampthing said:


> Just curious, what is the source of the stats you cite indicating less than 1% of the "audience" has 1080p after five years of 1080p televisions and monitors being available? If those stats were really that low, I would expect Best Buy to start liquidating their 1080p tvs tomorrow because after five years they still haven't caught on...


I didn't say that. I suggest you practice a little reading comprehension.


----------



## ggotch5445 (Sep 27, 2009)

I think that this thread may benefit from reading the attached article, from Widescreen Review, written by professional installer, Terry Paullin....


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> On the TV-on-Demand front... A&E was offering up 1080p episodes of the Beast I think via On Demand... but I'm not sure what will happen to that show since the main star passed away during the hiatus.


Personally I would like to see more VOD sites, from the broadcasters, as long as the price is right.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

ggotch5445 said:


> I think that this thread may benefit from reading the attached article, from Widescreen Review, written by professional installer, Terry Paullin....


Then all of you MUST read the thread at AVS Forum !


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

I have made this point before, and I am really surprised at how little attention it gets. 1080i may be inferior from the interlaced standpoint, on live/recorded telecasts, but for 24 frame film sources, a decent 1080p set should be able to reconstruct the original progressive image. Therefore, unless you have some cheap set that cuts corners on the deinterlacing, *YOU ARE WATCHING REAL 1080P EVERY TIME YOU WATCH A MOVIE ON HBO, ETC.!! * Hopefully, the preceding bold statement will catch the attention of those who might have just whizzed past to avoid a tiresome techinical explanation!
If you doubt this, look at it this way: a live telecast involves motion between the time an odd field is scanned, and the next even field. So when they are reassembled in the 1080p set, the even and odd lines are slightly out of time sequence, depending on how much motion has taken place. When a stationary film frame is scanned, however, no such motion takes place between odd/even fields. (It is actually slightly more complicated than this, but in essence, this is the basic reason).
Most people have the impression that BluRay is better because it is 1080p.
In fact, it has a considerably higher bit rate than broadcast TV, cable or satellite, which is the main reason for the higher picture quality.
Your set may not display exact multiples of 24 frames, but that, in my opinion, is a different, and much less important issue than the above.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HarveyLA said:


> I have made this point before, and I am really surprised at how little attention it gets.


It doesn't get due attention because the reasoning is flawed.

Regardless of the underlying frame rate, interlaced is still interlaced. Deinterlaced is NOT the same as progressive.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HarveyLA said:


> I have made this point before, and I am really surprised at how little attention it gets. 1080i may be inferior from the interlaced standpoint, on live/recorded telecasts, but for 24 frame film sources, a decent 1080p set should be able to reconstruct the original progressive image. Therefore, unless you have some cheap set that cuts corners on the deinterlacing, *YOU ARE WATCHING REAL 1080P EVERY TIME YOU WATCH A MOVIE ON HBO, ETC.!! * Hopefully, the preceding bold statement will catch the attention of those who might have just whizzed past to avoid a tiresome techinical explanation!
> If you doubt this, look at it this way: a live telecast involves motion between the time an odd field is scanned, and the next even field. So when they are reassembled in the 1080p set, the even and odd lines are slightly out of time sequence, depending on how much motion has taken place. When a stationary film frame is scanned, however, no such motion takes place between odd/even fields. (It is actually slightly more complicated than this, but in essence, this is the basic reason).
> Most people have the impression that BluRay is better because it is 1080p.
> In fact, it has a considerably higher bit rate than broadcast TV, cable or satellite, which is the main reason for the higher picture quality.
> Your set may not display exact multiples of 24 frames, but that, in my opinion, is a different, and much less important issue than the above.


Without high bit-rate (actually it must consider as NORMAL, if the cable/sat Co wouldn't digress the NORMAL level by overcompression embraced by their greed and fooling regular uneducated customers) your bold statement about "REAL" is an exaggeration !


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

harsh said:


> It doesn't get due attention because the reasoning is flawed.
> 
> Regardless of the underlying frame rate, interlaced is still interlaced. Deinterlaced is NOT the same as progressive.


_______________________________________________________
When you combine odd/even 1080i fields that came from the same stationary frame, you can recover the original 1080p image. Do some research of your own and you will find that it is accurate. There is also the 3-2 pulldown effect, but that does not alter this basic fact, providing the set decodes the image as it should.
If you want to challenge this, first get some facts. Then I'd be very interested in hearing specifically why you think the reasoning is flawed. 
______________________________________________________


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HarveyLA said:


> When you combine odd/even 1080i fields that came from the same stationary frame, you can recover the original 1080p image.


The fatal flaw with your understanding is that the fields do NOT originate from the same frame in an interlaced system.

Each field is a snapshot at the time of the field scan and that happens at double the frame rate. Put another way, in an interlaced 30 frame per second system, the even fields are captured 1/60th of a second later than the corresponding odd fields.

While there may be some pseudo-interlaced systems that work as you describe, that's not how it is designed to work.


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

harsh said:


> The fatal flaw with your understanding is that the fields do NOT originate from the same frame in an interlaced system.
> 
> Each field is a snapshot at the time of the field scan and that happens at double the frame rate. Put another way, in an interlaced 30 frame per second system, the even fields are captured 1/60th of a second later than the corresponding odd fields.
> 
> While there may be some pseudo-interlaced systems that work as you describe, that's not how it is designed to work.


I think you need to read his post again. He is talking about film conversion (telecine?), not live action, or straight-to-video. You don't think they project the movie on a screen in front of a TV camera do you?


----------

