# Tech said I should use "native off"



## dlh (Nov 29, 2008)

Don't want to start the whole "native off or on" thing again.
A tech was here and while I was double checking signal strengths and channels, I mentioned having "native" set to on to allow the tv to process the signal. He said, "Oh DTV says you should always have native set to off."

I asked him if there was more to it than just the speed of channel changing (like possible effects on hardware) and he didn't really give any details. Maybe he was just repeating DTV recommendations. This was one of the more knowledgeable tech/installers that was here to fix a bad install. (Really great guy) 

So, just thought I' throw that out there to see if anyone's ever heard of other reasons than picture quality and speed.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

With many HDTVs it does take longer to change channels with Native On, so it's not suprising that techs prefer to set it Off. And in most cases it probably doesn't matter from a video quality perspective. It's just a matter of whether the TV does a better job of converting the native format (Native On), or if the HD Receiver/DVR does (Native Off). Most modern TVs probably do a better job, but the video differences will be pretty subtle.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

"Native on" is a SCAM.*

*inside joke based on another thread.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"Bull"

Been using native on since the first day I got my Sony.
Also I don't use it on my Vizio, since it's a 1368 x 768 display and my Sony is a 1080p with a much better scaler than the H/HR2x.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

The speed isn't an issue for my on my Sony TVs... So I leave it on... but friends and family that have Samsungs I always turn it off for them... Takes a lot longer and causes the screen to "wig out" for a couple seconds...


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

I have "Native ON" on all of my DVRs. Of course, I hardly ever channel surf or watch Live TV, so the slower channel change doesn't bother me. I just think my HDTVs do a better job of converting the video than the DVR's processors.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

For the "average Joe Sixpack" Native set to Off is probably best, easiest to support because there are less problems and frankly they would never see the difference. So I don't doubt one bit that the "standard" is Native Off.

I personally have it off because I see no difference in video quality with it on and I'd rather have much quicker channel changes.

But there is nothing wrong with it set to on, so long as you understand the downside and/or how your TV reacts to it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> I personally have it off because I see no difference in video quality with it on and I'd rather have much quicker channel changes.


"nail on head"
If you can't see any difference then why used it?
"Simple test":
Tune to an SD channel in 480 output. Change [receiver] to the crop format, then to original format and use either your TV, or the external scaler you may have, and change it to zoom. Can you see a difference in the PQ?
If not, then there is no advantage to native on.
If you can, then you have "your" answer and it doesn't matter what anybody else says/tells you.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Since my DVR's are connected to an Edge Video Processor, I always use Native ON. There's an obvious difference in PQ.


----------



## KoRn (Oct 21, 2008)

I say on. As a matter of fact. I remember having Charter cable and the Motorola box did not have native resolution support. 1 reason why I dropped them and went with Directv. A bit extreme for some. But when you are a audio/video nut head like myself. It really matters. PQ will also be better. If you are watching some thing in 1080i and the program is showing in 720p. You will get a softer looking picture. Due to more scaling going on that is not needed. Match things up and it looks fantastic.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Personally, I lock mine (native off) to the displays native resolution. 

MY AQUOS looks like crap displaying 720p (its a 1080i/p native display panel). With native on, all the sports channels using 720p look fuzzy. Letting the HR22 upconvert averything to 1080i looks better on my display, and is twice as fast changing channels.

On the HR20, I lock at 720p, for my Polaroid's 720p display. I can see NO difference on the display between a 720p input or a 1080i input.

Just set it the way it works/looks best for you.


----------



## sooner02 (Feb 21, 2009)

I have a native 720p set, and I've tried both native off and on. I have to say, after going back and forth that native on looks remarkably better. It's a crisper, more eye-popping colorful HD picture when native is on. I can force all to 720p, but the colors just don't seem to pop out as dynamically.


----------



## ThePrisoner (Jul 11, 2009)

I keep native on but use only 480i, 1080i/p from my HR21-700. My display is a 1080p plasma which has 1:1 pixel mapping (no overscan when displaying 1080i/p).


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> "Bull"
> 
> Been using native on since the first day I got my Sony.
> Also I don't use it on my Vizio, since it's a 1368 x 768 display and my Sony is a 1080p with a much better scaler than the H/HR2x.


I have a Vizio with a 1368 X 768 display and it does a way better job at conversion than my HR21. SD looks a lot better. HD looks the same to me. So since I do still watch some SD, I have it set to on.


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

I have native off on all 4 of my HDTV's. All set to original format. # are 1080P tv's. They all look excellent. If native on allows the TV to do the scaling then I don't see why I should change. Now as others have said. I think it's all about preference


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Here is what I don't quite get, I assume Native On is essentially a pass through (correct?), so why even have the resolution choices? The tv is going to res everything to its native resolution, correct? If the tv is a 1080p it will up res everything to 1080p, or am I missing something? 
I understand having res choices with Native Off.


----------



## MIAMI1683 (Jul 11, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> Here is what I don't quite get, I assume Native On is essentially a pass through (correct?), so why even have the resolution choices? The tv is going to res everything to its native resolution, correct? If the tv is a 1080p it will up res everything to 1080p, or am I missing something?
> I understand having res choices with Native Off.


That's a good question. I thought the TV would take it to what ever was being broadcasted. IE if D* is sending it at 1080I that would res it correctly. Otherwise when I turn off native and set the HRxx to 1080I only lets ay. What ever is being passed through is already at 1080I


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> The speed isn't an issue for my on my Sony TVs... So I leave it on... but friends and family that have Samsungs I always turn it off for them... Takes a lot longer and causes the screen to "wig out" for a couple seconds...


I have a Samsung DLP 1080p/60 capable set and HR20 hooked up via HDMI and I leave Native Off (and resolution set to 1080i) for that very "wigging out" reason. I could really see no difference in PQ with letting the TV do the scaling of the HDMI input from the DVR versus letting the HR20 do it. With Native On, the TV has a 1-2 second screen reset event everytime it goes from a 720 to a 1080 source from the DVR, whether that's a channel off the dish or from the OTA antenna hooked up to he DVR. This is unlike the OTA channels coming directly from the antenna to the TV's tuner - the TV handles that format change seamlessly.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Native off becomes a matter of preference more than anything.

If you don't want to see your display adjust every time a new channel is selected that presents in 720p or 1080i or 1080p...then leave native off, and pick a format and leave it there.

Others want to have the presentation as it is sent out in that format.

There is no right or wrong - it comes down to your own taste.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

BubblePuppy said:


> Here is what I don't quite get, I assume Native On is essentially a pass through (correct?), so why even have the resolution choices? The tv is going to res everything to its native resolution, correct? If the tv is a 1080p it will up res everything to 1080p, or am I missing something?
> I understand having res choices with Native Off.


What Native on does is simply send the resolution the channel is. So you can think of it as a kind of passthru.

As for resolution choices...what if your TV won't do 720p? At least in the past, perhaps now still, there were TVs that were 1080i but couldn't accept a 720p signal. Same the other way around, a 720p TV may not even accept a 1080i signal. Thus you'd want to uncheck the resolutions that your TV can't accept or doesn't upconvert properly.

When I first got these things back nearly 3 years ago I tried Native On and in the resolutions checked 480i and 1080i only. Why? Well, I had a 1080i TV and while it would accept a 720p signal it didn't do all that great at upconverting it to 1080i, at least not as good as the HRs did. Eventually I got sick of the channel change slowness and just forced everything to 1080i and frankly saw no difference in 480i content being upconverted by the HR vs. the TV.

With my new Plasma it's a 1080p TV. My HR by far does a better 480i upconversion then it does, at least to my eyes. I see no visible difference in 720p or 1080i material on it so I just have kept Native Off and send it 1080i all the time for it to upconvert to 1080p.

I think the moral of the story here is there are dozens of combinations of native off/on, resolutions and how/what upconverts programming. Frankly there is no right or wrong answer here. It's all about what looks best on your unique combination of equipment. Set it to what looks best and go from there.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

KoRn said:


> I say on. As a matter of fact. I remember having Charter cable and the Motorola box did not have native resolution support. 1 reason why I dropped them and went with Directv.


As if you have to go looking for reasons to drop Charter.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> Here is what I don't quite get, I assume Native On is essentially a pass through (correct?), so why even have the resolution choices? The tv is going to res everything to its native resolution, correct? If the tv is a 1080p it will up res everything to 1080p, or am I missing something?
> I understand having res choices with Native Off.


Over HDMI it's "almost" a pass through, if all resolutions have been selected. SD has format options that can add/change the 4:3 to 16:9, or you can select "original format" which is true "pass through".
Now regardless of what you send to your TV, the TV will scale this to fit/full the display. Nobody would want to have the 640 x 480 SD image at 1:1, since it would be a postage stamp image.
The receivers don't have the best scalers and they aren't the worst either. Since both the receivers and the TV can/will scale, the question is which does a better job, which can only be answered by the viewer.
"Generally" keeping the scaling down to the minimum gives a better quality. By the nature of scaling, it's either going to remove or add pixels. Removing shouldn't cause problems like adding would, since adding requires some averaging or "assumption" as to what it should be.
Changing between interlaced and progressive scans gets a bit more complicated. From some that know a lot more than I about this, there seems to be an edge in the receiver scaling, verse the TV, since the receiver has access to data [in the stream] that gets lost once it's output to the TV.

In the end, this all comes down to what the viewer sees/likes and that is the correct setting.


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

I have my HR20-700 and HR23-700 receivers going thru an Onyko 7100 HTB (via HDMI) then out of that to the TV. Does Native ON or OFF apply here (since it's not direct from the DVR to the TV)??? For info. my TV is a 52" Sony XBR. Thanks.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> For the "average Joe Sixpack" Native set to Off is probably best, easiest to support because there are less problems and frankly they would never see the difference. So I don't doubt one bit that the "standard" is Native Off.
> 
> *I personally have it off because I see no difference in video quality with it on and I'd rather have much quicker channel changes.*
> 
> But there is nothing wrong with it set to on, so long as you understand the downside and/or how your TV reacts to it.


A good point.

I think Native On or Off depends mostly on the individual; what looks good and works best for that individual.

For me that's Native On. 

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Janice805 said:


> I have my HR20-700 and HR23-700 receivers going thru an Onyko 7100 HTB (via HDMI) then out of that to the TV. Does Native ON or OFF apply here (since it's not direct from the DVR to the TV)??? For info. my TV is a 52" Sony XBR. Thanks.


I guess the question here is: does your Onyko do any scaling?
If it does then you have the choice of three scalers to use.
My XBR2 has a good scaler.
I guess you could start with the HR20 doing the scaling, then change it to "original format" and native on, then change any setting in the Onyko to see what it could do, and finally either set the Onyko to "pass through" or manually set it to the output of the HR 20 and then see what the Sony does. The would take a bit more work, since you have three options and much make sure which scaler you are actually using for "your testing".


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> A good point.
> 
> I think Native On or Off depends mostly on the individual; what looks good and works best for that individual.
> 
> ...


Almost every time this subject comes up, it becomes a 200+ post thread and in the end the "correct answer" is "what looks good to you".


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

Well, I am split... I have two Pioneer PDP-6010FD plasma TVs. One in bedroom and one in living room. 

I am more critical of PQ in the living room and have Native ON set there. I can see a loss in PQ in 720p upscaled to 1080i with native off. In the bedroom, I have Native off for channel changing speed.

I prefer native on for the PQ, but the HR2xs HDMI handshake with the Pioneer TVs takes 4 to 6 seconds to accomplish. So changing channels up and down in Native mode is VERY, VERY SLOOOOW. 

In the bedroom, with Native off, I have the HR2x set so everything gets scaled by the HR2x to 1080i (except 1080p) and channel changes is much faster since there is no HDMI handshake with every channel change. I tend to surf more late night in the bedroom and PQ is not as important.

Everyone should remember that the native resolution for DirecTV SD is 480 x 480 (we should call it SD-lite) and the box scales it to 720 by 480, even with native on. So what you see is already heavily processed. That is why SD looks so bad.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

V'ger;2161729 said:


> Everyone should remember that the native resolution for DirecTV SD is 480 x 480 (we should call it SD-lite) and the box scales it to 720 by 480, even with native on. So what you see is already heavily processed. That is why SD looks so bad.


 Guess this would depend on what your format settings are.
The 480 x 480 really gets scaled to about 560 x 480 and then have the pillarbars added.


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

V'ger;2161729 said:


> Well, I am split... I have two Pioneer PDP-6010FD plasma TVs. One in bedroom and one in living room.
> 
> I am more critical of PQ in the living room and have Native ON set there. I can see a loss in PQ in 720p upscaled to 1080i with native off. In the bedroom, I have Native off for channel changing speed.
> 
> ...


I have the same Pioneer plasma and experience the same and sometimes longer channel changes. I have an HR23 connected via HDMI to a Pioneer SC-05 and then HDMI to the 6010. Channel changes are very slow, sometimes I approach double digits. They are slow as well even if I go direct to the plasma. I prefer native on but may change to native off because of speed. Is this poor HDMI handshaking performance a result of a poor HDMI implementation in the DirecTV DVRs?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

anleva said:


> Is this poor HDMI handshaking performance a result of a poor HDMI implementation in the DirecTV DVRs?


While the handshake "might be" part of it, I'd say much more of this has to do with both the DVR and the TV. As I watch mine change channels, the receiver will cycle through a few resolutions, and sometimes back and forth. Next comes the TV and how/what it needs to do to process the signal.
Leaving everything "fixed" reduces the lag from both ends.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Native "off" seems to solve problems running some HD projectors,takes away the long searching.... thing after a resolution change.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

In living room 40in Sony Hr23 it's native on original format.
In bedroom 32in Sony H20 its native off pillar box for quick channel change.

Basically you should experiment and what ever looks best and your comfortable whit at the end of the day that's it.


----------



## jonkeee (Jul 17, 2009)

If you have a fairly new TV with all the bells and whistles and it's a good brand then you're wasting part of what you paid extra for by letting the Directv box scale the image. A good TV is always going to have a far better scaler in it than a satellite or cable box. Plus the scaler in your TV is designed to work with your TV whereas the box is just a generic scaler. The only thing I've noticed about Native on my set that I don't like is that with some SD channels I have to set to 16:9 or there's a narrow band of distracting lines at the very top of the screen.


----------



## sooner02 (Feb 21, 2009)

I think this is just a matter of if your tv's scaler does a better job than the receiver, use native on. There may be cases where the tv just doesn't do a good a job. In my situation, my two HD sets do a noticeably better job of scaling and I have a much crisper/vibrant HD picture with native on. Yes it does take a little longer switching channels, but one of my tv's is not really much slower than if I had it set to off. 

I do have a question about if this may be more taxing on the tv having to do more work when switching between SD and HD? I guess I'm concerned if this may cause something to wear out quicker on the tv by forcing it to do the scaling.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

sooner02 said:


> I do have a question about if this may be more taxing on the tv having to do more work when switching between SD and HD? I guess I'm concerned if this may cause something to wear out quicker on the tv by forcing it to do the scaling.


It might wear out the wiring.
:lol:


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

I keep native on for 2 reasons:

1) I don't want to scale 1080 content down to 720 if I lock to 720p
2) I don't want to interlace 720p content if I lock to 1080i


----------



## Shad (May 29, 2007)

If you have a 1080p capable HDTV, will it upscale everthing to 1080p with native off and only the 1080p box checked in the "resolutions" menu?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Shad said:


> If you have a 1080p capable HDTV, will it upscale everthing to 1080p with native off and only the 1080p box checked in the "resolutions" menu?


 "no", 1080p must be from the source to be displayed in 1080p, otherwise 1080i is the highest output.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

And if you have a 1080p TV it will upscale everything to 1080p anyway no matter if you have Native on or off. At least mine does.

So again it comes down to which is better, the TV or the DirecTV receiver in upscaling. And if the TV is better is it so much better to put up with slow channel changes?


----------



## anleva (Nov 14, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> And if you have a 1080p TV it will upscale everything to 1080p anyway no matter if you have Native on or off. At least mine does.
> 
> So again it comes down to which is better, the TV or the DirecTV receiver in upscaling. And if the TV is better is it so much better to put up with slow channel changes?


Good summary. My TV definitely upscales better and the picture looks better with native on than upscaling through the DTV DVR. But the channel changes are so painfully slow I think I will just live with using the DVR instead. Wish that wasn't the case.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

bonscott87 said:


> And if you have a 1080p TV it will upscale everything to 1080p anyway no matter if you have Native on or off. At least mine does.


Right, but if you lock the DVR to 1080i, it will interlace and scale the 720p signal. Then the tv will deinterlace it back to 1080p. This is not the same as simply scaling 720p to 1080p.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

If you turn native off you should set the STB's resolution to the tv's resoution so the tv does little to no scaling.
On a 1080p tv.
For 480i stb has to scale and deinterlace
For 720p stb has to scale and interlace tv has to deinterlace
For 1080i tv has to deinterlace


----------



## gilviv (Sep 18, 2007)

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!
It became a dreaded ON/OFF Native Thread again!!!!!!
It's ALIVE!!!!:lol::lol::lol::eek2::eek2:


----------



## josetann (Oct 2, 2006)

gilviv said:


> Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!
> It became a dreaded ON/OFF Native Thread again!!!!!!
> It's ALIVE!!!!:lol::lol::lol::eek2::eek2:


Just hook it up using composite video. Now you don't have to worry about native-on or off.


----------



## irock (Jul 3, 2009)

i leave native on and like it.


----------



## dlh (Nov 29, 2008)

dlh said:


> Don't want to start the whole "native off or on" thing again.
> 
> So, just thought I' throw that out there to see if anyone's ever heard of other reasons than picture quality and speed.


Sorry and SORRY. I'm the op and I was afraid this deadly threadly would arise from the gave. Let's all agree that we're :beatdeadhorse:
Stick a fork in me.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

ToBeFrank said:


> Right, but if you lock the DVR to 1080i, it will interlace and scale the 720p signal. Then the tv will deinterlace it back to 1080p. This is not the same as simply scaling 720p to 1080p.


Whatever it "technically" is the fact is that it looks better on my TV to send it 1080i all the time vs. 720p all the time. Thus I lock the DVR on 1080i and I'm done with it and I get the best picture I can get.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> Whatever it "technically" is the fact is that it looks better on my TV to send it 1080i all the time vs. 720p all the time. Thus I lock the DVR on 1080i and I'm done with it and I get the best picture I can get.


"In your opinion" [oops, that's all that counts, since you're the one watching it :lol: ]


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

bonscott87 said:


> Whatever it "technically" is the fact is that it looks better on my TV to send it 1080i all the time vs. 720p all the time. Thus I lock the DVR on 1080i and I'm done with it and I get the best picture I can get.


Unless you're watching sports that are broadcast in 720p. The "technical" part is you're decreasing your motion resolution in that case. But like VOS said, if your opinion works for you, go for it.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Next time i go into the bedroom i am changing the h20 back to native and that's it,set it and forget it.Then with both tv's set to native will that makes me a native American even though i am Mediterranean decent?


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

ToBeFrank said:


> Unless you're watching sports that are broadcast in 720p. The "technical" part is you're decreasing your motion resolution in that case. But like VOS said, if your opinion works for you, go for it.


It's not my opinion. It's fact on my TV. Period. End of discussion. It may not be fact on your setup. Sending 720p to my TV does not look better then 1080i even on 720p sports. And I watch a LOT of sports (hockey and football).

Every single setup is different. Set things to what looks best to you. I spent 2 weeks with different settings on my old HDTV to get the best settings and I did the same with this new Plasma.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

bonscott87 said:


> It's not my opinion. It's fact on my TV. Period. End of discussion. It may not be fact on your setup. Sending 720p to my TV does not look better then 1080i even on 720p sports. And I watch a LOT of sports (hockey and football).


You mean I have better eyes than you.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Clearly 480p is the best because it's progressive and the pixels are bigger. Bigger=better!


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

ToBeFrank said:


> You mean I have better eyes than you.


Or maybe my "tiny" 52" screen doesn't show a difference as some of you with 110" monsters see.


----------



## YKW06 (Feb 2, 2006)

For folks who have a native 720p or 1080i/p screen, Native-Off and set to output at your screen's native res is almost certainly best.

For someone like me with an odd resolution screen (900p), though, it makes absolute sense to leave Native on so as to avoid having the HR21 re-res the signal once and then my TV re-res it again (which the odd screen requires be done with standard digital signals).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

YKW06 said:


> For folks who have a native 1080i/p screen, Native-Off and set to output at your screen's native res is almost certainly best.


"No, it's not", or at least isn't for my Sony XBR2.


----------



## jonkeee (Jul 17, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "No, it's not", or at least isn't for my Sony XBR2.


Agreed.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

I leave my native "On", and tell the HR20 that my TV only receives 720p, 1080i and 1080p. That way my guide looks a lot better on SD channels. Otherwise it is very grainy if I leave 480 settings on.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

loudo said:


> I leave my native "On", and tell the HR20 that my TV only receives 720p, 1080i and 1080p. That way my guide looks a lot better on SD channels. Otherwise it is very grainy if I leave 480 settings on.


That's another tweak/option, but it also suggests your TV doesn't have the best scaler.
[Again] there is no one right answer/setting for everyone. Play with what you have and find what you find is best.

Statements like: "almost certainly best" aren't correct for either setting, as it's too general and doesn't take into account the user's equipment or preference.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> That's another tweak/option, but it also suggests your TV doesn't have the best scaler.
> [Again] there is no one right answer/setting for everyone. Play with what you have and find what you find is best.
> 
> Statements like: "almost certainly best" aren't correct for either setting, as it's too general and doesn't take into account the user's equipment or preference.


I have noticed that. You kind of have to play with the different settings on different TVs. Each one seems to look better with certain settings.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

mines set to "on" with 720/1080 checked.. TV does a terrible job with 480 for some reason..


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> That's another tweak/option, but it also suggests your TV doesn't have the best scaler.
> [Again] there is no one right answer/setting for everyone. Play with what you have and find what you find is best.


The point I was making is there is more than just scaling involved. To take a 720p signal and make it interlaced you *are* decreasing the motion resolution. That's before it ever gets to the TV. Yes, the TV will deinterlace it, but you don't get back the original progressive signal. You get it with the decreased motion resolution. Perhaps you can't see it or perhaps your TV doesn't have the necessary motion resolution to begin with to be able to see it, but you *are* degrading the signal before sending it to the TV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> The point I was making is there is more than just scaling involved. To take a 720p signal and make it interlaced you *are* decreasing the motion resolution. That's before it ever gets to the TV. Yes, the TV will deinterlace it, but you don't get back the original progressive signal. You get it with the decreased motion resolution. Perhaps you can't see it or perhaps your TV doesn't have the necessary motion resolution to begin with to be able to see it, but you *are* degrading the signal before sending it to the TV.


Well maybe you need to be in a Lab to really know if "*are*" is really "*could be*".
This has been discussed over the last couple of years here many times.
In one of the threads someone posted, who seems to know more about this than I [which isn't that hard], that the SAT feed has motion vectoring data [if I remember the correct term] that the scaler uses for the interlace/progressive scan conversion which deceases/eliminates motions errors. This data isn't present in the receiver output, so any errors would come from the TV converting the scan.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

ToBeFrank said:


> but you *are* degrading the signal before sending it to the TV.


I don't think anyone argues that. There are a lot of technical things here that just don't matter in this discussion. It's just that most people can't tell the diff. Just like most people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080i in the first place. Only real high end setups or with a very large screen will most people see a difference and even if they do they are probably a videophile. I somehow doubt my $1200 plasma is high end enough for me or you to see the diff.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Well maybe you need to be in a Lab to really know if "*are*" is really "*could be*".


Nope. Read up on interlacing and deinterlacing.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

bonscott87 said:


> It's just that most people can't tell the diff. Just like most people can't see the difference between 720p and 1080i in the first place. Only real high end setups or with a very large screen will most people see a difference and even if they do they are probably a videophile. I somehow doubt my $1200 plasma is high end enough for me or you to see the diff.


You just repeated what I already said (except I can see the difference in fast motion):



ToBeFrank said:


> Perhaps you can't see it or perhaps your TV doesn't have the necessary motion resolution to begin with to be able to see it


----------



## mgavs (Jun 17, 2007)

It's amazing how often "native" is still brought up. Bottom line is simple:
* If your picture SD and/or HD looks better with native on leave it on
* If your picture SD and/or HD looks better with native off leave it off
Don't worry about what others are seeing on their screens, be your own judge. It's an option that allows us all to get the best from whatever equipment we have. Do the same for resolutions 480-1080. Too many people here are confused because some of the information posted either does not apply to them or is "wrong" for them. Let your own eyes do the watching and make the decision.

Historical: In my case I have a Pioneer Kuro 50 that looks _much_ better with native on and all resolutions checked. I also have a Pioneer Kuro 60 fed by a DVDO VP50 processor, with or without the VP50 the picture is _much_ better with native on. Also, the Pio's (and VP50) do fantastic stretch compared to the HR2x so I don't want the HR2x doing anything, just pass the signal as it was sent. For different TVs native may be set to off and look better. I don't let the extra time thing bother me since I would rather have the best picture over the shortest time to change channels. _But all this info applies to my setup_. Hope this helps someone...

When native first started it was called "as broadcast". It was on a wishlist that I and others really needed and DirecTV eventually provided. After it was initially implemented there were problems with 4x3. More about that here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=108160

Oh, and to dlh the original OP, the installer could not have been that smart saying that DTV recommends it off. He obviously did not know what it does since for _some_ people it improves the picture.

I agree this thread should end, I am sorry I posted but now that I wrote it may as well leave it, I won't post again.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

I just switched mine on for the first time. It takes 5 seconds to switch from one channel to the other. I can live with that.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> Nope. Read up on interlacing and deinterlacing.


 Think what you want, I was only trying to offer some infomation that you seem to not get/know of the SAT feed and Broadcom chips used, but it isn't worth going any farther..........


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

mgavs said:


> Bottom line is simple:
> * If your picture SD and/or HD looks better with native on leave it on
> * If your picture SD and/or HD looks better with native off leave it off


But even if the picture looks slightly better what if i dont want to deal with the longer changing channel delays....thats why i keep it off.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Think what you want, I was only trying to offer some infomation that you seem to not get/know of the SAT feed and Broadcom chips used, but it isn't worth going any farther..........


The problem is your information has nothing to do with the loss of motion resolution. If you're not willing to understand what interlacing and deinterlacing are doing to the picture, then you're correct, this isn't worth going any further.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> The problem is your information has nothing to do with the loss of motion resolution. If you're not willing to understand what interlacing and deinterlacing are doing to the picture, then you're correct, this isn't worth going any further.


[last go-round] I do understand the interlaced/progressive scan, even/odd frames, etc. "The problem is", in one of these threads some time back [pre 3/8/07], someone posted a very good explanation of how the receiver can deinterlace the signal better because it has the motion vectoring data from the SAT feed, "but" while they did a good job, I'm not capable of explaining it in the same detail to you.
Here was a thread that summed up what had come before: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=81801

You'd need to search for the earlier thread(s) to find the original post.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> [last go-round] I do understand the interlaced/progressive scan, even/odd frames, etc. "The problem is", in one of these threads some time back [pre 3/8/07], someone posted a very good explanation of how the receiver can deinterlace the signal better because it has the motion vectoring data from the SAT feed, "but" while they did a good job, I'm not capable of explaining it in the same detail to you.
> Here was a thread that summed up what had come before: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=81801
> 
> You'd need to search for the earlier thread(s) to find the original post.


I'm not going to search for it nor read it because it's irrelevant. Here it is quite simply... when it gets interlaced you go from 60 frames per second to 30 frames per second. One half of the information gets removed. When the TV deinterlaces it, it goes from 30 frames per second back to 60 frames per second, but it cannot recover the information that was removed.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> I'm not going to search for it nor read it because it's irrelevant. Here it is quite simply... when it gets interlaced you go from 60 frames per second to 30 frames per second. One half of the information gets removed. When the TV deinterlaces it, it goes from 30 frames per second back to 60 frames per second, but it cannot recover the information that was removed.


 If you were to actually read and comprehend what my first post said, you would see I was pointing out what the receiver does and agreed with you about what the TV does, thus in deinterlacing 1080i to 720p, the motion errors wouldn't be introduced in the receiver, though the resolution would be reduced.
Learning requires effort and an open mind.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> If you were to actually read and comprehend what my first post said, you would see I was pointing out what the receiver does and agreed with you about what the TV does, thus in deinterlacing 1080i to 720p, the motion errors wouldn't be introduced in the receiver, though the resolution would be reduced.


And since I have *only* been talking about reduced resolution and not errors, your posts continue to be irrelevant.



> Learning requires effort and an open mind.


Perhaps you should heed your own advice.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> And since I have *only* been talking about reduced resolution and not errors, your posts continue to be irrelevant.


Now you really have me 


ToBeFrank said:


> The point I was making is there is more than just scaling involved. To take a 720p signal and make it interlaced you *are* decreasing the motion resolution. That's before it ever gets to the TV. Yes, the TV will deinterlace it, but you don't get back the original progressive signal. You get it with the decreased motion resolution.


Which side of the fence are you on? 

Maybe starting over will get something worthwhile going.

If you have a 1080p TV and the receiver could output 1080p/60 [which it can't] having the receiver de-interlace a 1080i signal would have less motion errors than sending a 1080i signal to the TV and have it de-interlace, since the receiver has the motion vectoring data from the SAT feed that isn't present in the 1080i output for the TV to use.
Converting a 1080i to 720p should also not have the motion errors, but will be reduced in screen resolution that the TV couldn't makeup for without some loss.
Have I covered both scan errors and resolution errors, or are you [again] just going to say "nope" without anything more meaningful to add?


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> If you have a 1080p TV and the receiver could output 1080p/60 [which it can't] having the receiver de-interlace a 1080i signal would have less motion errors than sending a 1080i signal to the TV and have it de-interlace, since the receiver has the motion vectoring data from the SAT feed that isn't present in the 1080i output for the TV to use.


This is a conversion I wasn't talking about. I'll throw that paragraph away.



> Converting a 1080i to 720p should also not have the motion errors, but will be reduced in screen resolution that the TV couldn't makeup for without some loss.


Again, this is a conversion I wasn't talking about. More throwaway.

*Specifically*, I have been talking about the broadcast being a 720p/60 signal, the receiver scaling and interlacing it to 1080i/60 (due to native off and locked to 1080i), and the tv deinterlacing it to 1080p/60. Because of the interlacing/deinterlacing the 1080p/60 will have less motion resolution than the original 720p/60.

You acknowledge that the TV does not have the motion vectoring data:


veryoldschool said:


> the receiver has the motion vectoring data from the SAT feed that isn't present in the 1080i output for the TV to use.


 Thus, in the conversion I have been talking about the motion vectoring data is irrelevant as it isn't used by the TV.

Something to think about... if the 1080p/60 on the tv in this case had the same motion resolution as the original 720p/60 broadcast, why wouldn't the sports channels simply broadcast 1080i/60 in the first place? Or even save bandwidth by broadcasting 720i/60?

I don't know why you keep bringing up "errors" and conversions that I haven't been talking about.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> You acknowledge that the TV does not have the motion vectoring data: Thus, in the conversion I have been talking about the motion vectoring data is irrelevant as it isn't used by the TV.


we seemed to have gotten off on the wrong foot from the get-go. This was in my first post, and yet instead of finding anything to agree on [and correct any errors in topic or understanding] your short "nope", didn't leave me with much to understand your point.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> The point I was making is there is more than just scaling involved. To take a 720p signal and make it interlaced you *are* decreasing the motion resolution. That's before it ever gets to the TV. Yes, the TV will deinterlace it, but you don't get back the original progressive signal. You get it with the decreased motion resolution. Perhaps you can't see it or perhaps your TV doesn't have the necessary motion resolution to begin with to be able to see it, but you *are* degrading the signal before sending it to the TV.


I wasn't sure which post to quote, so I figured this one would work...

Sense you are trying to get very techincal...

You are making a blanket statement about loosing resolution when deinterlaceing .. and that is absolutly completely false. You can, but not necessarily. It depends on what the source material was shot in.. And I'd say over half of all the programing being shown in 720P was shot at either 24 or 30 fps, simple deinterlacing a 720p60 siganl does not reduce its resolution in any way shape or form if its coming from 30fps source material, and was properly encoded to 720p60... and if its coming from 24fps, its actually creating less false images than before.

No matter how you look at it, there are far more variables in play here than you are willing to acknowledge, as VOS's mention of vectoring data is absolutely relevant to the equation of what is happening when interlacing and or deinterlacing these signals to convert them to a different format.

Of course, in the end, all of this also depends on how well coded each frame that is broadcast is, as is the ability of any unit doing the conversions to properly interpret the information it is receiving.. And generally speaking, something that is designed with a specific and know input (Sat boxes) are going to be better at it than something that is designed for a nunmber of different kinds of devices (i.e. most peoples TV's) unless they are a very high end unit. SO If you have a Fujitsu or Pioneer Eliet plasma, yeah, let your plasma sort it out.. if not, your receiver might be better equipped... Most TV's, even really good ones expect a good quality standardized picture, and are meant to show a resolution native to its processing.. Very few are designed with the software to really calibrate any incoming signal to look perfect. There is so much more to picture quality than just brightness and contrast and resolution, and making a TV that adjusts significantly for those things is cost prohibitive for any good tv.. Thats why it is often said that letting your receiver that is specifically designed to deal with said incoming signal and give the TV a signal it has to do very little with is usually the best way to go, for most TV's.

You are talking about things that are true in some respects, but not all, and VOS has mentioned things that do affect PQ in regards to resolution and motion resolution, and you keep dismissing them as irrelevant, yet half your own conclusions are just as irrelevant to what is actually happening if you really dig deeper into the technical aspects of what is happening with these signals.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Sense you are trying to get very techincal...


Not really.



> You are making a blanket statement about loosing resolution when deinterlaceing .. and that is absolutly completely false. You can, but not necessarily. It depends on what the source material was shot in.. And I'd say over half of all the programing being shown in 720P was shot at either 24 or 30 fps, simple deinterlacing a 720p60 siganl does not reduce its resolution in any way shape or form if its coming from 30fps source material, and was properly encoded to 720p60... and if its coming from 24fps, its actually creating less false images than before.


You make a good point, but actually I'm more thinking about when motion resolution really matters. What are ESPN's games shot in?



> No matter how you look at it, there are far more variables in play here than you are willing to acknowledge, as VOS's mention of vectoring data is absolutely relevant to the equation of what is happening when interlacing and or deinterlacing these signals to convert them to a different format.


That's why I restricted my point of view to only the specific conversion I have been talking about. In that case the vectoring data is irrelevant as it's not available to the TV, which is where the deinterlacing takes place. Deinterlacing is where the motion resolution is lost. VOS has good information, but it didn't relate to what I was talking about.



> Of course, in the end, all of this also depends on how well coded each frame that is broadcast is, as is the ability of any unit doing the conversions to properly interpret the information it is receiving.. And generally speaking, something that is designed with a specific and know input (Sat boxes) are going to be better at it than something that is designed for a nunmber of different kinds of devices (i.e. most peoples TV's) unless they are a very high end unit. SO If you have a Fujitsu or Pioneer Eliet plasma, yeah, let your plasma sort it out.. if not, your receiver might be better equipped... Most TV's, even really good ones expect a good quality standardized picture, and are meant to show a resolution native to its processing.. Very few are designed with the software to really calibrate any incoming signal to look perfect. There is so much more to picture quality than just brightness and contrast and resolution, and making a TV that adjusts significantly for those things is cost prohibitive for any good tv.. Thats why it is often said that letting your receiver that is specifically designed to deal with said incoming signal and give the TV a signal it has to do very little with is usually the best way to go, for most TV's.


Too much illogical stuff in here to bother with.



> You are talking about things that are true in some respects, but not all, and VOS has mentioned things that do affect PQ in regards to resolution and motion resolution, and you keep dismissing them as irrelevant, yet half your own conclusions are just as irrelevant to what is actually happening if you really dig deeper into the technical aspects of what is happening with these signals.


I only dismissed one thing as irrelevant. I stand by it. Feel free to dismiss whatever you want as irrelevant too.


----------



## BKC (Dec 12, 2007)

Great whizzing match fellas.


----------



## teebeebee1 (Dec 11, 2006)

ha, whizzing match of the Native Nerds of DBS


----------



## oenophile (Dec 1, 2006)

Hey, does turning native off/on fix the BRRIIIIP?!? (lol, couldn't resist.)


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

oenophile said:


> Hey, does turning native off/on fix the BRRIIIIP?!? (lol, couldn't resist.)


Nope. Well, ya asked.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

This reminds me of the "good ol days" of boltjames and DLB discussions.

Time to pop some popcorn...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ATARI said:


> This reminds me of the "good ol days" of boltjames and DLB discussions.
> 
> Time to pop some popcorn...


 Think I'll just go take a nap, I'm tired.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Well my dvr add receiver work really great whit native on,only thing they need now is a clock.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

gfrang said:


> Well my dvr add receiver work really great whit native on,only thing they need now is a clock.


 hit info.. right there


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> Feel free to dismiss whatever you want as irrelevant too.


I know I've made *my* choice ...


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

houskamp said:


> hit info.. right there


Or right-arrow and add TVAPP clock.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Oh, and I prefer native "on" with my SONY and "off" force 720p with my projector.


----------



## kokishin (Sep 30, 2006)

ATARI said:


> This reminds me of the "good ol days" of boltjames and DLB discussions.
> 
> Time to pop some popcorn...


Not even close. Deadbolt was 100% FOS. BTW, TBF is technically correct. However beauty, or in this case native off vs on, is in they eye of the beholder.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

Looks like a lot of experts here in this thread so I must ask related questions. I searched other threads and could not find the answer.

I have a 2009 plasma that can do 1080p

I like to set my HD DVR so it does not default to 16x9 so I can then use the Format button when watching my local news to stretch it (take the black bars out). The local news station is in 1080i but the news is in SD.

QUESTION #1
Leave the HR2x in this mode am I hurting my picture quality? It all seems the same either in 16x9 or the 4x3 mode. 

QUESTION #2
If I get my HD local channels over the air and I want the best quality, would turning Native on be the best? I this case there would be no extra Sat signal telling the receiver about any vectoring data.


----------



## su_A_ve (Sep 27, 2007)

interesting...

I settled for native on. Two reasons - One is that I also use the RCA outputs to send a signal to the bedroom via a modulator (TV is a small HD set, but from a distance is ok)

The problem is that if I had native off, the signal sent was too squished (left/right) even though the set was set to normal (as if it would be a 16:9 signal).

I don't have the problem when using native on.

The other reason, is that I do like to use the TVs smart stretch when watching SD content. That is, it keeps the center normal, but stretches the left/right sides.


----------

