# Not happy with StarzHD quality



## Mark Strube (May 10, 2006)

I'm glad they've added some new HD channels, but I must say I am very underwhelmed with the quality of StarzHD... perhaps this has something to do with the mpeg4?

I'm viewing this on a 50" 1080p Sony SXRD. All of the other HD channels (HBO, HDNet etc) look very nice and smooth, no major issues. I'm viewing on a ViP622 connected thru HDMI.

StarzHD just can't seem to achieve full fluid motion. Anytime there's a scene with the camera steadily moving, it's slightly choppy. Also, there's slightly jagged edges in some scenes, as if my hdtv cannot properly find the progressive frames or something (it's in CineMotion mode which has no issues producing a beautiful 1080p image from all of the other HD movie channels).

Also, in moderate to high motion, there's a good amount of "ghosting."

I don't know if these issues are due to their encoders or my box's decoding, but I've forced it to update and then rebooted, which has fixed none of these problems.

I hope these are just early issues that will be corrected soon, with an update or by fixing the encoding on their end. But if not, then mpeg4 is far from ready for prime time.

I've also sent this to Dish's picture quality control email address: [email protected]


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

There is no 1080p image on the other movie channels...its 1080i


----------



## Mark Strube (May 10, 2006)

1080i, when containing content with a 24fps source like film, contains progressive frames within the interlacing which my 1080p television extracts to create a progressive image. Look up the term "inverse telecine." 

(It's the same thing that happens when your DVD player outputs a true progressive 480p image from your 480i DVD. There's really no blending going on... it's finding progressive frames within the interlacing.)


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

I noticed the same problem with NGHD, earlier in the day, it looks better now. Wonder if they were still working on things, as NGHD, was so poor earlier, I forced the wife to stop watching it, the SD channel looked better.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Mark Strube said:


> 1080i, when containing content with a 24fps source like film, contains progressive frames within the interlacing which my 1080p television extracts to create a progressive image. Look up the term "inverse telecine."
> 
> (It's the same thing that happens when your DVD player outputs a true progressive 480p image from your 480i DVD. There's really no blending going on... it's finding progressive frames within the interlacing.)


Here is the full definition of Inverse Telecine. Are you saying that 1080p is doing the same thing to 1080i that is done when converting film to 480p?

The Big Picture - Interlaced vs. Progressive, Fields vs. Frames, 3:2 pulldown and Inverse Telecine

Continued from the previous page.
3) 3:2 pulldown and Inverse Telecine

Originally people needed a way to display stuff recorded on film on a television set. This posed a problem: how does one turn 24 Frames per Second film into 59.94 Fields per Second video? The process invented to do this is called 3:2 pulldown or telecining. Telecining involves manipulating the film to turn it into a format which can be watched on a TV.

The first thing that is done is the film is slowed down by 0.1% to make it 23.976 Frames per Second. This is done because 29.97 FPS is 0.1% slower than 30 FPS. So from now on we will refer to the two rates as 24 and 30 for simplicity. Now comes the problem of how do we turn 24 FPS into 30 FPS? Those of us who have taken elementary algebra (which I hope is most of you) can see that common factor amongst the two numbers is 6 (24 = 6x4 and 30 = 6x5). This means if we insert an extra frame every 4 frames from the film, we will have 30FPS video.

There's a problem, however. This causes the video to stutter slightly as we're basically duplicating a frame every sixth of a second. So what can we do? Well, we can take advantage of the fact that television is interlaced, and manipulate the fields which make up the 5 frames we've created. To do this, we alternate between two and three fields for each frame that we output (thus the term 3:2 pulldown). If we have four film frames, which we divide up into Odd and Even fields, we get the following:

Even Field A B C D 
Odd Field A B C D

Now lets interlace together the second and third frame of every series, to give us the following:
Even Field A A B C D 
Odd Field A B C C D

Here we can see what telecined video looks like. We've taken the second frame and stretched out its fields across two frames, while the even field of the first frame in the series stays around for an extra 60th of a second, and the odd field of the third frame does so as well.

This gives us an interesting opportunity - if we have a video source that has undergone telecining, we can put it through a process to remove this, appropriately called inverse telecining. This basically reconstructs the 4 frames from every 5 to turn the source back into progressive video. This has many many advantages - most notably that you have less frames to store thus each can be given more bits (in the case of video codecs based on bits/second) or the whole file will take less space (in the case of video codecs based on bits/frame).

Here's an example of video before and after the inverse telecining process (or after and before the telecining process, if you want to call it that):
Before inverse telecine...
Eva - AA
Eva - AB
Eva - BC
Eva - CC
Eva - DD

After inverse telecine...
Eva - AA post-ivtc
Eva - BB post-ivtc
Eva - CC post-ivtc
Eva - DD post-ivtc

Notice that the B Fields from the second and third frame have been reconstructed into 1 frame and that has become the 2nd frame of the series. As you can see, inverse telecining dramatically increases the video quality when viewed on a computer monitor.

If you are using a codec that supports 23.976 FPS video (i.e. you're not editing using special hardware like a DC30/DV500 or something like that) I highly suggest editing in this format. It requires an extra step of preparation, but you wind up with smaller or better looking files at the end. Once everything is done, and you want to convert the video back into 29.97 FPS, it's quite easy to simply reverse the process on the final product. But you will end up with much more "film like" video and better image quality overall.

However, if you're editing in something like DV, which does not support any framerate besides 29.97 or 25, then you do not have this option.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

I have observed the slightly choppy video on STRZHD on my 622's; one component, the other HDMI. I checked the other new HD channels, this observation pertains to STRZHD only.


----------



## Mark Strube (May 10, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> Are you saying that 1080p is doing the same thing to 1080i that is done when converting film to 480p?


Exactly... although to be more precise... 1080p is doing the same thing to 1080i as 480p is doing to 480i when viewing any film-sourced DVD. I can tell you it does because I've processed an inverse telecine on 1080i material myself many times on my PC, and because I've actually read up on what my hdtv does when in cinemotion mode... which is basically progressive scan for hd content. (And when you take it out of cinemotion mode, you notice it. A much more jagged image, since it's then treating it as fully interlaced "video" 1080i.)


----------



## dude2 (May 28, 2006)

This is a sincere question, my 51 inch phillips crt projector tv has 1080i native resolution and is progressive scan. Does that mean the picture will be better than if it were 1080i standard interlace???
thanks in advance for any help understanding what I am looking at.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

No CRT projector of which I am aware is is any way progressive - native interlaced ONLY. It may take a progressive input but it displays it interlaced, unless it is a $40,000 unit.

I take part of that back, CRT front projectors such as BARCOs and SONY G units have enough band width to do progressive, but then again were in the $40,000 range new.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> No CRT projector of which I am aware is is any way progressive - native interlaced ONLY. It may take a progressive input but it displays it interlaced, unless it is a $40,000 unit.
> 
> I take part of that back, CRT front projectors such as BARCOs and SONY G units have enough band width to do progressive, but then again were in the $40,000 range new.


Several early ones were, ex. Panasonic's rear projector did 720p. Generally was too expensive and given up.


----------



## dude2 (May 28, 2006)

The tv is a new phillips 51PP9100D that you can see the specs on at www.usasupport.phillip.com. It will show that it is progressive scan and resolution is 1080.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

dude2 said:


> The tv is a new phillips 51PP9100D that you can see the specs on at www.usasupport.phillip.com. It will show that it is progressive scan and resolution is 1080.


The link you have on the page carries one to a Whoops page. It doesn't give anything close to specs for your TV.


----------



## teachsac (Jun 10, 2006)

That particular TV only supports progressive scan at 480P. Otherwise the supported resolutions are 480i and 1080i. 

S~


----------



## KKlare (Sep 24, 2004)

Mark Strube said:


> but I must say I am very underwhelmed with the quality of StarzHD... perhaps this has something to do with the mpeg4?... All of the other HD channels (HBO, HDNet etc) look very nice and smooth, no major issues.


Notice that HBO HDNet are established MPEG2 but StarzHD is new MPEG4. Think that's the trouble?
-Ken


----------



## teachsac (Jun 10, 2006)

I believe it is the MPEG4 encoders that are causing the stuttering. Hopefully with the new batch of encoders it will rectify the problem. It is noticable on all of my "True" MPEG4 channels including the locals.

S~


----------



## jcm.oo (Jan 24, 2005)

I noticed this as well, I have a 720p sony. Only noticed it on starz hd.


----------



## Jerry G (Jul 12, 2003)

teachsac said:


> I believe it is the MPEG4 encoders that are causing the stuttering.


I suspect you're correct about this. I find the video stuttering to be very distracting and haven't been able to enjoy watching anything on StarzHD. This needs to get fixed quickly or put Starz HD on an MPEG2 encoder until Dish can fix their MPEG4 problems.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Jerry G said:


> I suspect you're correct about this. I find the video stuttering to be very distracting and haven't been able to enjoy watching anything on StarzHD. This needs to get fixed quickly or put Starz HD on an MPEG2 encoder until Dish can fix their MPEG4 problems.


I'm not seeing any stuttering.... Using a 622 off 129 sat.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

IT is not stuttering like with the standard 622 software video stuttering. It is a ticking or jerking motion as the camera does any movement or panning shots. Most shows in either sd or hd show a panning shot with a clean , fluid scene with no choppy scenes . This is distracting and gives me a headache. When there is no movement and the camera is still on a wide shot , it looks fine. THis is definately the mpeg4 encoders at work here. I encourage ALL subs to send an email and complain to the dishquality folks to get this fixed NOW.

[email protected]


----------



## Joe Clark (Jan 10, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IT is not stuttering like with the standard 622 software video stuttering. It is a ticking or jerking motion as the camera does any movement or panning shots. Most shows in either sd or hd show a panning shot with a clean , fluid scene with no choppy scenes . This is distracting and gives me a headache. When there is no movement and the camera is still on a wide shot , it looks fine. THis is definately the mpeg4 encoders at work here. I encourage ALL subs to send an email and complain to the dishquality folks to get this fixed NOW.
> 
> [email protected]


Add the stuttering to a very soft quality and it makes for an extremely unsatisfying viewing experience on Starz. I watched part of Bewitched yesterday and it was very disappointing (and not just the quality of the movie).


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> IT is not stuttering like with the standard 622 software video stuttering. It is a ticking or jerking motion as the camera does any movement or panning shots. Most shows in either sd or hd show a panning shot with a clean , fluid scene with no choppy scenes . This is distracting and gives me a headache. When there is no movement and the camera is still on a wide shot , it looks fine. THis is definately the mpeg4 encoders at work here. I encourage ALL subs to send an email and complain to the dishquality folks to get this fixed NOW.
> 
> [email protected]


OK that's called motion artifacts. Completely different than "stuttering". I haven't watched enough yet to notice... (I.E. I've only watched 10-20minutes)


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Thankyou that is the word I was looking for. MOtion ARtifacts that goes well with mpeg4 since it means moving picture e.....g..... whatever. What ever you call it I want it fixed as these channels in hd for 1080i look like SH*T. IF I can't watch them do to the motion artifacts they are useless to me. Dish wants to move every thing over to mpeg 4 in the next 3 years. I hope to GOD that they get this fixed by then or the entire sat service will be useless to me. They should just move the starz hd channel to mpeg 2 with mpeg4 tags , till they get the bugs worked out. A premium service HD channel that looks worse than the sd counterpart is a joke.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Thankyou that is the word I was looking for. MOtion ARtifacts that goes well with mpeg4 since it means moving picture e.....g..... whatever. What ever you call it I want it fixed as these channels in hd for 1080i look like SH*T. IF I can't watch them do to the motion artifacts they are useless to me. Dish wants to move every thing over to mpeg 4 in the next 3 years. I hope to GOD that they get this fixed by then or the entire sat service will be useless to me. They should just move the starz hd channel to mpeg 2 with mpeg4 tags , till they get the bugs worked out. A premium service HD channel that looks worse than the sd counterpart is a joke.


I view StarsHD and most HD in 720p, as I watch Action. 1080i, is nice, but until 1080p( more affordable) comes out, for most ACTION 720p is really better. AS odd then even line posting, can lead to Artifacts no matter what.

Contrary to myth, 720p is not inferior to 1080i; 720p has fewer lines but also has the advantages of progressive scanning and a constant vertical resolution of 720 lines, making it better able to handle motion


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mark Strube said:


> I can tell you it does because I've processed an inverse telecine on 1080i material myself many times on my PC, and because I've actually read up on what my hdtv does when in cinemotion mode... which is basically progressive scan for hd content.


The question is whether or not the frame rate of the ViP622 is variable. Maybe it does a pulldown internally. If so, all of your theories are out the window. I think this goes deeper than the original "native resolution" wish list item.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Thankyou that is the word I was looking for. MOtion ARtifacts that goes well with mpeg4 since it means moving picture e.....g..... whatever. What ever you call it I want it fixed as these channels in hd for 1080i look like SH*T. IF I can't watch them do to the motion artifacts they are useless to me. Dish wants to move every thing over to mpeg 4 in the next 3 years. I hope to GOD that they get this fixed by then or the entire sat service will be useless to me. They should just move the starz hd channel to mpeg 2 with mpeg4 tags , till they get the bugs worked out. A premium service HD channel that looks worse than the sd counterpart is a joke.


One of the channels has to be 1st. So in some ways it is good that it is a channel that also has the same feed in SD. I want to see it fixed as well but I expect to see glitches while the equipment is new. Yes there are motion artifacts. But hopping that it can be taken care of soon.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

GrumpyBear said:


> Contrary to myth, 720p is not inferior to 1080i; 720p has fewer lines but also has the advantages of progressive scanning and a constant vertical resolution of 720 lines, making it better able to handle motion


Contrary to the contrarians, 1080i actually presents an updated image from one field to the next, so the eye is fooled.

None of the rhetoric matters. It all comes down to how good your scaling unit is on your display because everything we watch has been conditioned in some way from the original and mostly for the worse.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

harsh said:


> Contrary to the contrarians, 1080i actually presents an updated image from one field to the next, so the eye is fooled.
> 
> None of the rhetoric matters. It all comes down to how good your scaling unit is on your display because everything we watch has been conditioned in some way from the original and mostly for the worse.


Well put Harsh, People need to look at the entire picture. Pun intended


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

GrumpyBear said:


> Well put Harsh, People need to look at the entire picture. Pun intended


 That doesn't mean we need to take it without a whimper. This is the beginning for mpeg 4 . If no one complains to Dish about these motion artifacts then they will think that no one cares and so it will stay this bad. Charlie even said tonight that the mpeg 4 lets them do the same picture quality as mpeg 2 which the average viewer won't even notice. IF you want to bend over and take the screwing from Dish on this channel without comment then go ahead. I paid way to much for two hd tvs and two hd 622 dvrs just so that I can watch the sd version of the Hd channel because it is full of jerky panning shots make me have a head ache. 

I say complain and complain LOUDLY!

[email protected]


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Well,
I will start watching StarzHD more to see if I have the same issue. What few shows I have watched, Have Artifact Free. Noticed some issues with NGHD, but I saw posted somewhere not all the shows are in HD on NGCHD. But StarZ is just one of the Latest MPEG4 stations, I watch ESPN2 for the World Cup all day and NEVER had a single Artifact all day.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> That doesn't mean we need to take it without a whimper. This is the beginning for mpeg 4 . If no one complains to Dish about these motion artifacts then they will think that no one cares and so it will stay this bad. Charlie even said tonight that the mpeg 4 lets them do the same picture quality as mpeg 2 which the average viewer won't even notice. IF you want to bend over and take the screwing from Dish on this channel without comment then go ahead. I paid way to much for two hd tvs and two hd 622 dvrs just so that I can watch the sd version of the Hd channel because it is full of jerky panning shots make me have a head ache.
> 
> I say complain and complain LOUDLY!
> 
> [email protected]


Is this know as the "squeaky wheel" philosophy? The Wheel that squeaks the most gets greased. If they have not gotten it together in the next 2 weeks I will be squeaking just a loud as U are. But I will sit back and go on vacation then when I get back start yelling then. I'll let you yell until then.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Thankyou that is the word I was looking for. MOtion ARtifacts that goes well with mpeg4 since it means moving picture e.....g..... whatever. What ever you call it I want it fixed as these channels in hd for 1080i look like SH*T. IF I can't watch them do to the motion artifacts they are useless to me. Dish wants to move every thing over to mpeg 4 in the next 3 years. I hope to GOD that they get this fixed by then or the entire sat service will be useless to me. They should just move the starz hd channel to mpeg 2 with mpeg4 tags , till they get the bugs worked out. A premium service HD channel that looks worse than the sd counterpart is a joke.


For those of you without HD locals from Dish yet, this is what they look like. Definetly some work to be done.


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

Gee, it all looks ok to me. Is there something wrong with my equipment?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

GrumpyBear said:


> Well,
> I will start watching StarzHD more to see if I have the same issue. What few shows I have watched, Have Artifact Free. Noticed some issues with NGHD, but I saw posted somewhere not all the shows are in HD on NGCHD. But StarZ is just one of the Latest MPEG4 stations, I watch ESPN2 for the World Cup all day and NEVER had a single Artifact all day.


 Just remember that the only real national channel in true mpeg4 is Starz hd. The rest of the national channels are in mpeg 2 with a mpeg 4 headers so only the vip hd receivers can see them. This is why you haven't noticed any artifacts worth complaining about on the other hd channels. True mpeg 4 with regards to 1080i , is full of motion artifacts that make the picture look choppy and jerky. The credits don't roll by ,they jerk by and smear.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> Just remember that the only real national channel in true mpeg4 is Starz hd. The rest of the national channels are in mpeg 2 with a mpeg 4 headers so only the vip hd receivers can see them. This is why you haven't noticed any artifacts worth complaining about on the other hd channels. True mpeg 4 with regards to 1080i , is full of motion artifacts that make the picture look choppy and jerky. The credits don't roll by ,they jerk by and smear.


I didn't see this on some programs I recorded from Starz HD (61.5).


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

rbyers said:


> Gee, it all looks ok to me. Is there something wrong with my equipment?


It's probably because of your TV size and/or the distance you are from the TV. Also, different shows will show a different level of issues.

Basically, the closer you are to your TV + the size of the TV + the motion of the scene on an MPEG4 channel + the darkness of the scene all contribute to how bad it looks.

i.e. last night I was watching Starz HD (Pioneer 43" plasma, HDMI In, about 7' from the screen) and Die Hard with a Vengence was on. During scenes when they are outside, standing around talking it was fine, detail was a little washing out but other than that it was ok. Then, when they moved inside or into the tunnel where it was darker and there was lots of motion, everything started looking blury and a bit choppy. i.e. motion artifcats and too low of a frame rate would be my guess.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

I watched the Die Hard last night too, figured that would be a good movie to see the issues, only once did I notice any choppy or Black Blotching as I prefer to call it. Not sure what really causes this, is it MPEG4, or since the was filmed a while back, and the quality isn't there. I notice the Black Blotch problem is worse on my Brother in laws, 50" Akami LCD Rear Projection, than on my 32" Toshiba CRT. I have also noticed this on DVD's not just broadcast signals.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

I recorded two movies via STZHD on my 622. Neither will play. I can FF and see the content but that is all that will work. The movies recorded were Stealth 6/11/06 at 1:39am and Hostage 6/0/06 at 5:59pm. Has anyone else had problems in recording and playing back STZHD programs?

Update: I got them to work. I put the 622 in standby and did a 30 second power cord reset. What gives here?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

boylehome said:


> I recorded two movies via STZHD on my 622. Neither will play. I can FF and see the content but that is all that will work. The movies recorded were Stealth 6/11/06 at 1:39am and Hostage 6/0/06 at 5:59pm. Has anyone else had problems in recording and playing back STZHD programs?
> 
> Update: I got them to work. I put the 622 in standby and did a 30 second power cord reset. What gives here?


What U have done is what we call a hard reboot. It is helping to reduce the software glitch that the 622 has. Most of us have to do either a hard or soft reboot almost every day b4 prime time so that it will run fine all night. Once they get the next s/w update we really hope that it fixes the problem. Welcome to the world of cutting edge electronics.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

harsh said:


> Contrary to the contrarians, 1080i actually presents an updated image from one field to the next, so the eye is fooled.
> 
> None of the rhetoric matters. It all comes down to how good your scaling unit is on your display because everything we watch has been conditioned in some way from the original and mostly for the worse.


1080i/30=540p/60


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> 1080i/30=540p/60


My friend Jim nothing scans at 60 fields per second. All TV's scan in US scan at 30 fields per sec. The unit may be told that there are 2 sets of lines to the work at once that is close to what progressive is. But it is still work at 30 frames per sec. 720 p just runs all the line in order instead of interlacing them. Now computer monitors can have a different scan rate that is progressive but that is kinda getting into a different set up since they are multisync. A 1080p would put all the lines scanned in order but on sat we don't get that. We are and will be limited to 1080I. 1080 p isn't a standard yet and the ATSC would have approve it. Then there runs into bandwidth problems. Of course this also one of the main reasons for going MPEG 4 to squeaks more in to same bandwidth. Aos we are looking a compressed signal that has to be uncompressed and that is another kettle of fish as well. It would be interesting to see if the 2 looked the same but don't know we could do that no labs around us to go see it.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

My theory for the issues with MPEG4 is: Most material is originating as MPEG2 material, I.E. locals, and probably what's stored to disk for StarzHD then played out. When this reencoded to MPEG4 it likely doesn't help the quality any. Once material is stored in MPEG4 this will help greatly. However I don't see the locals getting better anytime soon because I assume Dish is getting the locals the same way we all do, encoded as MPEG2.


----------



## erikjohn (Feb 27, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> No CRT projector of which I am aware is is any way progressive - native interlaced ONLY. It may take a progressive input but it displays it interlaced, unless it is a $40,000 unit.
> 
> I take part of that back, CRT front projectors such as BARCOs and SONY G units have enough band width to do progressive, but then again were in the $40,000 range new.


Jim,
Actually there are alot of CRT front projectors that will show a progessive image. In fact the majority will. Even that little D50 in your avatar will do 720p. You do need a well setup 9" Machine such as a Electrohome Marquee 9500LC, Sony G90, Barco 1209 or Cine 909 in order to fully resolve 1080p. There are alot of 8" machines that have the bandwidth to do 1080p, they just can't resove it so the image will end up looking soft as the scan lines overlap.

The vast majority if not all Rear projection CRT tv's that I have seen are limited to 1080i, 720p or 540p. One of the few that could probably resolve 1080p would be the Mistu 65" Diamond with 9" CRT's.

Whatchel,
All NTSC signals from 480i to 1080p run verticle frequencyat 59.95hz. The horizontal freq for 480i i 15,75, 480p is 31.47, 720p is 44.95, 1080i is 33.72 and 1080p is 67.43, Keep in mind there are scalers out there that will deinterlace a 1080i image and rescale it to 1080p for those that can benifit from it. A progressive signal scans twice as many lines as its interlaced counterpart, thus your scan frquency is doubled in the horizontal range.

Erik


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> 1080i/30=540p/60


:lol: Knew it was only a matter of time before someone spewed out this nonsense again.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

Jim5506 said:


> 1080i/30=540p/60


Oh no, you didn't!

After everything that has been written in this forum about this statement, or similar ones, I'm not going to bother argue about this.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

Mark Strube said:


> 1080i, when containing content with a 24fps source like film, contains progressive frames within the interlacing which my 1080p television extracts to create a progressive image. Look up the term "inverse telecine."
> 
> (It's the same thing that happens when your DVD player outputs a true progressive 480p image from your 480i DVD. There's really no blending going on... it's finding progressive frames within the interlacing.)


Most so-called 1080p televisions today cheat with 1080i material. They just take each 540 line field and double it, so what you're really getting is a scaled-up 60fps 540p picture. This actually works great with video-based material (no combing ever), but hurts film-based sources. On the other hand, these TVs do scale a native 720p signal up to 1080p nicely.

I would wait a generation or two before I drop money on a "1080p" set. Pretty much all of them on the market now can't even accept a true 1080p signal over HDMI (which future Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players will be able to provide). Getting a 1080p set now is like settling for pseudo-1080p. Don't even get me started on 1080p DLP "wobulation" technology! :nono:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> 1080i/30=540p/60


No.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lyle_JP said:


> Most so-called 1080p televisions today cheat with 1080i material. They just take each 540 line field and double it, so what you're really getting is a scaled-up 60fps 540p picture.


Your assumption is completely off base. 1080i frames are buffered as part of the motion compenstation process so that a 1080p image can be displayed.


> This actually works great with video-based material (no combing ever), but hurts film-based sources.


This is also false: ATSC HDTV provides for 24fps display.


> Getting a 1080p set now is like settling for pseudo-1080p. Don't even get me started on 1080p DLP "wobulation" technology! :nono:


1080p input capable sets are few, but they are out there. There's nothing wrong with "wobulation"; even in its infancy. Some tests have shown some implementations to be as good or better than competing LCoS implementations.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

harsh said:


> Your assumption is completely off base. 1080i frames are buffered as part of the motion compenstation process so that a 1080p image can be displayed.


Most of the line doublers in todays "1080p" sets are not powerful enough to do an inverse telecine on 1080i material. It's not an assumption, it's a fact. This first generation of 1080p sets are just not up to snuff yet (the Sony SXRDs being a notable exception).



harsh said:


> There's nothing wrong with "wobulation"; even in its infancy. Some tests have shown some implementations to be as good or better than competing LCoS implementations.


And I've seen a dozen more tests which show that the pixel overlap from wobulation cuts the effective resolution down by as much as 40%. Face it, this first generation of sets is a compromise. When they come out with true 1080p DLP mirrors and start using colored LEDs instead of color wheels, then 1080p on DLP will be worth it. Until then, caveat emptor.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Let's keep this thread on topic. I've deleted a few off topic posts.


----------



## jcm.oo (Jan 24, 2005)

Tried watching this StarzHD channel again, man it is horrible. Whats the deal? I'd rather watch SD than this crap. If the picture wasn't jerking it wouldn't be that bad. I will NOT pay for channels that look like this. I wouldn't watch this channel if it was free. 

Dish: If you can't get a better picture than this then you need to take a step back and figure it out before launching more HD channels. THIS CHANNEL QUALITY SUCKS!!!!!


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

damn, when did Starz and NG HD come on? I guess i need to switch to that all HD channel group D* provided more often  what else have I missed that is new ?


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Rogueone said:


> damn, when did Starz and NG HD come on? I guess i need to switch to that all HD channel group D* provided more often  what else have I missed that is new ?


NFLHD and HGTV-HD were also added. Only been a week or so, so not far behind


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lyle_JP said:


> Most of the line doublers in todays "1080p" sets are not powerful enough to do an inverse telecine on 1080i material.


It isn't necessary to do any processing on 24FPS material because it can be played directly using the 720p24 and 1080p24 [yes, p] ATSC modes. Inverse telecine is a process used on 480i30 video of film. It doesn't necessarily apply to HDTV. Don't underestimate the power of a DSP.


> When they come out with true 1080p DLP mirrors and start using colored LEDs instead of color wheels, then 1080p on DLP will be worth it.


Most of the current crop of 1080p units are three chip models that don't employ a color wheel.

I'd need some serious convincing that colored LED technology has the color and brightness consistency to provide a uniform image. To date, quite a bit of the discussion of LED usage has been around using globs of white LEDs in place of halogen lamps.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> All TV's scan in US scan at 30 fields per sec.


All TVs in the US used to scan at 60 fields per second. Jump ahead to the 1990's and the introduction of HDTV. 480p, 720p and 1080p models scan _at least_ 60 frames per second while 1080i scans at 60 fields per second. You'll find that some of the microdisplay units scan as high as 120 frames per second internally.

There's never been a more flicker-free time in history.


----------



## Lyle_JP (Apr 22, 2002)

> It isn't necessary to do any processing on 24FPS material because it can be played directly using the 720p24 and 1080p24 [yes, p] ATSC modes.


Except that nearly all the content which _should_ be broadcast in these modes is instead transmitted as 1080i60. Yes, I know this is the fault of the content providers, but it's not a problem that's going away soon.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Great news today!! I received an email from the dishquality folks and they asked me how Starz hd looked to me today. It looks wonderfull. They finally got the mpeg 4 thing down . NO more jerky panning shots . I can actually watch it now without feeling sick to my stomach from all the motion artifacts.

KUDOS to Kip and all the engineers at Dishnetwork! Starz Hd is finally FIXED! 

See Complaining does work . Send all picture and audio quality complaints to : [email protected]


----------



## RichP (Sep 6, 2003)

Heh, maybe I should have checked NFL HD (and this thread) before sending this off. I haven't watched it since the weekend, but it was truly awful. I am really hoping it is fixed, because the preseason games are almost here!!

Good morning,

I subscribed to Dish Network 2 weeks ago, and love all of the HD channels. The Voom channels are fantastic. However, I have a problem with NFL Network HD and was told to e-mail you folks.

The "regular" NFL Network channel looks fine on both my 625 box and my 622 box. However, when I watch the HD version on the 622 box, the video seems "jerky", for lack of a better word. It's clearly noticeable when the camera pans around during a game rebroadcast, and actually gives me a headache if I watch it for more than 10 minutes (again, this does *not* happen on the "standard" NFL Network channel). 

It's not a HUGE deal since preseason is still a few weeks away, but it is currently unwatchable. Like I said before, all the other HD channels I've watched have not exibited this problem. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. 

Love, Rich (j/k, I just snipped my real contact info)
------------------------------

I didn't notice the Starz! issue since I don't sub to that channel, nor have I watched NGHD for any length of time. To be honest, I've spent most of my TV watching time watching stuff I've DVR'ed off Monsters HD and Rave, both of which look fantastic. I'm using a Mitsubishi DLP front projecter, the model is something like HC900u (it's not "true" 720p, but the native rez is 'close enough') projected onto a 106" Da-Lite screen. This could be a reason that I get headaches/motion sickness from NFL HD, moreso than the people using normal LCDs/DLPs/plasmas. It is really, really bad, and I'm looking forward to checking tonight to see if it's fixed.


----------



## STXJim (Apr 22, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> KUDOS to Kip and all the engineers at Dishnetwork! Starz Hd is finally FIXED!


After reading this I'm thinking about buying a 622 to replace my 921 and ad one more HD station.
Two questions please...
1. Can someone please compare StarzHD PQ to another basic Dish HD channel? HDNet, HBO, etc.
2. Does StarzHD show some of their movies in its OAR? Especially 2.35:1
Thanks


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

HDnet will always look better since it is full hd resolution. Hbo would be second and then Starz would be third. It is not in full hd resolution at 1920 x1080 but more like 1420 x 1080 but I can't tell any difference. A lot of the mpeg 4 channels are more hd lite and not full hd right now. But your receiver will upconvert the rest of the way and you won't see any difference . I am making a lot of dvd copies on my dvd recorder off of Starz right now. They look wonderful. 


I don't have a clue what Oar is.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> ...
> I don't have a clue what Oar is.


C'mon Mike, you've been around here for a while. OAR=Original Aspect Ratio


----------



## STXJim (Apr 22, 2002)

Mikey said:


> C'mon Mike, you've been around here for a while. OAR=Original Aspect Ratio


Mikey,
Please continue and tell me about StarzHD OAR...2.35:1


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

STXJim said:


> Mikey,
> Please continue and tell me about StarzHD OAR...2.35:1


 I am still a little fuzzy here . What is 2.35:1 ? THe picture is presented in 16x 9 wide screen is all I am sure about. Anyone else know about this one? It isn't stretched to fit like TNT hd channel if that is what you mean.


----------



## Mikey (Oct 26, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I am still a little fuzzy here . What is 2.35:1 ? THe picture is presented in 16x 9 wide screen is all I am sure about. Anyone else know about this one? It isn't stretched to fit like TNT hd channel if that is what you mean.


16x9 is ~1.78:1, so a 2.35:1 show would have black bars on the top and bottom of a 16x9 set, when it's shown OAR. I don't have Starz, but I have seen many OAR shows on HDNET Movies, and some on HBO-HD.


----------



## motts (Apr 11, 2006)

I just saw Rookie of the Year and unfortunately it looked pretty bad on Starz HD. It was ghosting all over the place. Never had a problem with ghosting and no other channel has had this occur for that matter. Let me just add that when I last tuned into Starz HD this ghosting was not present. I switched over to regular Starz and except for the lack of sharpness (its SD so no biggie) everything was ok. Anyone else experiencing this problem lately?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Mikey said:


> 16x9 is ~1.78:1, so a 2.35:1 show would have black bars on the top and bottom of a 16x9 set, when it's shown OAR. I don't have Starz, but I have seen many OAR shows on HDNET Movies, and some on HBO-HD.


 I don't notice that many shows with black bars on the top and bottoms , unlike Showtime which has them all the time. I am sure if the show is an older sd show, they would then put the bars up since they don't stretch it to fit like Tnt hd does.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

motts said:


> I just saw Rookie of the Year and unfortunately it looked pretty bad on Starz HD. It was ghosting all over the place. Never had a problem with ghosting and no other channel has had this occur for that matter. Let me just add that when I last tuned into Starz HD this ghosting was not present. I switched over to regular Starz and except for the lack of sharpness (its SD so no biggie) everything was ok. Anyone else experiencing this problem lately?


 I have never seen ghosting on the hd channels at all. Are you sayin ghosting like an analog channel? Since they fixed the suttering mpeg 4 problem, I have seen no real problems with the STarz hd channel at all.


----------



## STXJim (Apr 22, 2002)

This should help those that don't understand the different aspect ratios.
I love 2.35:1!


----------



## motts (Apr 11, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I have never seen ghosting on the hd channels at all. Are you sayin ghosting like an analog channel? Since they fixed the suttering mpeg 4 problem, I have seen no real problems with the STarz hd channel at all.


Like an analog channel is exactly right. It behaved as if I own a first generation lcd with a slow response time. But, that's certainly not the case. I don't get it either. I just tuned in again (currently playing Proof) and it looks good. Maybe just that movie was at fault? This is probably the case.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

I have noticed on STARZHD with different movies, the choppy movement problem is fixed but now the with motion there is a smudging (looks like the skin is slipping around on the face). This is especially noticeable when there is a close-up of a face shot when head are turning or the subject are walking. I see the same artifact when I watch Lil's which i think is a result of over-compression/decreased bandwidth. This is observed on both my 57" DLP and 60" LCD RP. I have not observed macro-blocking with quick scene changes.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

boylehome said:


> I have noticed on STARZHD with different movies, the choppy movement problem is fixed but now the with motion there is a smudging (looks like the skin is slipping around on the face). This is especially noticeable when there is a close-up of a face shot when head are turning or the subject are walking. I see the same artifact when I watch Lil's which i think is a result of over-compression/decreased bandwidth. This is observed on both my 57" DLP and 60" LCD RP. I have not observed macro-blocking with quick scene changes.


This is my observation as well. They have resovled one issue (the choppiness) but not the smearing.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

I haven't noticed any smearing but I sit about 12 feet away from the tv. I will have to move closer and see if this is a problem for my tv.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I haven't noticed any smearing but I sit about 12 feet away from the tv. I will have to move closer and see if this is a problem for my tv.


You may have a better monitor and/or a smaller screen. The bigger the screen the more it shows. I'm 14' from mine.


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

STXJim said:


> After reading this I'm thinking about buying a 622 to replace my 921 and ad one more HD station.
> Two questions please...
> 1. Can someone please compare StarzHD PQ to another basic Dish HD channel? HDNet, HBO, etc.
> 2. Does StarzHD show some of their movies in its OAR? Especially 2.35:1
> Thanks


"The Corruptor" is on StarzHD right now (9:00pm EDT 7/28/06), and yes it is being broadcast in it's OAR of 2.35:1. It has the black bars top and bottom on my 16:9 Sony HDTV.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

boylehome said:


> You may have a better monitor and/or a smaller screen. The bigger the screen the more it shows. I'm 14' from mine.


 I have a 57" Toshiba hdtv and I still don't see it. My tv is set in Movie mode with the sharpness turned down to 25% and it is set in warm mode. The automatic light sensor mode turns the contrast up and down as needed due to the light in the room. I also have two uplights on a shelf behind and above the tv giving me light in the room without glare on the tv. I agree that the brand of tv is better. I think Toshiba does a good job with Dishnetwork satellite tv. I even took my receiver with me when I upgraded 2 or 3 years ago, to test it on all tvs I looked at and Toshiba won hands down everytime.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> I have a 57" Toshiba hdtv and I still don't see it. My tv is set in Movie mode with the sharpness turned down to 25% and it is set in warm mode. The automatic light sensor mode turns the contrast up and down as needed due to the light in the room. I also have two uplights on a shelf behind and above the tv giving me light in the room without glare on the tv. I agree that the brand of tv is better. I think Toshiba does a good job with Dishnetwork satellite tv. I even took my receiver with me when I upgraded 2 or 3 years ago, to test it on all tvs I looked at and Toshiba won hands down everytime.


What kind of TV? I take it at that size it's a Rear Projection, is it LCD, DLP, CRT? Maybe a certain techology does a better job hiding the issue. I still see the smearing on almost everything I watch from StarzHD on my 43" plasma at 7' away, 720p. Don't see it on the non-MPEG4 channels.


----------



## motts (Apr 11, 2006)

Rob Glasser said:


> What kind of TV? I take it at that size it's a Rear Projection, is it LCD, DLP, CRT? Maybe a certain techology does a better job hiding the issue. I still see the smearing on almost everything I watch from StarzHD on my 43" plasma at 7' away, 720p. Don't see it on the non-MPEG4 channels.


This is what I should have called it the first time I saw it. Smearing. It looked like ghosting to me for lack of a better word at the time. It seems to be worse with certain scenes, like boylehome said. Sometimes it looks so bad that it's unwatchable. Like I said, during Rookie of the Year, I switched it to the SD version and my eyes felt relieved. This issue makes this channel unbearable and it's a shame. I hope they resolve the issue quickly.


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

motts said:


> ...like boylehome said. Sometimes it looks so bad that it's unwatchable....


I sure don't remember saying this but if you say so, okay. To comment, sometimes the smearing/smudging is worse that at other times. IMHO I think that they may be adding and subtracting compression on the fly. Maybe to help out with whatever else is being shared in the bandwidth for said bank of channels.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Rob Glasser said:


> What kind of TV? I take it at that size it's a Rear Projection, is it LCD, DLP, CRT? Maybe a certain techology does a better job hiding the issue. I still see the smearing on almost everything I watch from StarzHD on my 43" plasma at 7' away, 720p. Don't see it on the non-MPEG4 channels.


 It is a 2004 rear projection model and it does a great job hiding a lot of problems with satellite picture - Especially in the movie mode. I watched a couple of movies today on Starz hd and I still don't see it and I moved up close to look for smearing and still no smearing. I guess it could be your tv does show the artifacts more and mine hides it better.


----------



## motts (Apr 11, 2006)

boylehome said:


> I sure don't remember saying this but if you say so, okay. To comment, sometimes the smearing/smudging is worse that at other times. IMHO I think that they may be adding and subtracting compression on the fly. Maybe to help out with whatever else is being shared in the bandwidth for said bank of channels.


Ah, it seems I didn't word it clearly, since "what you said" applied to your "smearing" description and the certain scenes it occurs in, such as walking and close - ups of faces. Either way, yes, I agree with you on the fact that this does occur. I happen to find it very annoying.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rob Glasser said:


> What kind of TV? I take it at that size it's a Rear Projection, is it LCD, DLP, CRT? Maybe a certain techology does a better job hiding the issue. I still see the smearing on almost everything I watch from StarzHD on my 43" plasma at 7' away, 720p. Don't see it on the non-MPEG4 channels.


This kind of issue probably has a lot more to do with the image processing technology than it does the display technology. The term that used to be popular was "motion compenstation".


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> It is a 2004 rear projection model and it does a great job hiding a lot of problems with satellite picture - Especially in the movie mode. I watched a couple of movies today on Starz hd and I still don't see it and I moved up close to look for smearing and still no smearing. I guess it could be your tv does show the artifacts more and mine hides it better.


Mike - I agree with you. I'm watching on a 60" Sony LCD Rear Projection and I watched several movies this weekend on StarzHD and thought the picture quality was very good. I still occasionally get the bumping / stuttering issue with my 622 receiver, but if I pause it for 10 - 15 seconds and leave that buffer on the receiver, then the bumping / stuttering goes away.


----------

