# 1080p DirecTV HD DVR?



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

In the spirit of this thread which is more about the relative merits of the various broadcast formats vis a vis one another and 1080p (which we all recognize is not and, in all likelihood never will be, a broadcast format), I thought I'd take a little informal poll about people's sense regarding the possibility of DirecTV releasing a HD DVR capable of outputing 1080p (even though none of its source material would be 1080p). In the interest of full disclosure, I originally posted this in the above linked thread, but it was a little off-topic and was rightly ignored there.

Acting under the assumption that there will be no 1080p broadcast material in the near future (if ever), it is an interesting question (to me anyway) whether DirecTV will attempt to capitalize on the popularity of 1080p televisions by creating a HD DVR that will upconvert and output 1080p, then market it as a 1080p HD DVR. Sure, none of the broadcast formats will have changed, but they would honestly be able to advertise a "1080p HD DVR" (in the sense that it's capable of upscaling/deinterlacing the available broadcast formats to 1080p). Not to mention, this hasn't stopped Oppo (and others) from producing upscaling DVD players that output at 1080p, even though they cannot read true 1080p sources (Bluray & HD-DVD).

I'm actually very curious to see if they'll do this. And, to be honest with you, if they do it "right" and produce something that can handle those duties better than my TV (with a high-quality processor a la Reon or Faroudja or something), that would be something I might actually be interested in buying. Since the broadcast material has to be upscaled/deinterlaced anyway to display on my 1080p TV, if DirecTV can give me an HD DVR that is capable of handling those tasks WELL and outputting the result at 1080p, I'd be first in line.

Any thoughts on the likelihood of this or the potential success of it (i.e. would you buy it?)?

--Mav

P.S. FYI, I recently discovered that 1080p output was apparently bandied about as a feature on the HR21 Pro in the early data sheets, but that for whatever reason, it was dropped (or maybe a typo).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

1080p was never in the pipe for HR21 pro, it was an error in the prototype's lettering. 

As I've said before, never say never but there are definitely no products in the immediate future for DIRECTV with 1080p, and no programming.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Any thoughts on the likelihood of this or the potential success of it (i.e. would you buy it?)?


I am sure that some would buy it simply because it's the "latest and greatest". Whether or not one would benefit from it would depend solely on your particular HDTV.

Personally, I don't think I would benefit from such a device, as my HDTV does a good job of objectively (via testing) and subjectively (it looks good to me) deinterlacing 1080i to 1080p. Others, with sets that have issues in this regard (and this is NOT a price thing, some cheaper sets do well while some very pricey sets don't) could certainly benefit.

As a marketing device? As I said above, some will just want the latest, whether or not it will really do them any good. So, yeah, it would likely sell some boxes that they otherwise wouldn't have sold. Enough to make it a cost effective marketing device? Good question!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

From what I have read and heard, a 1080p broadcast via Cable, Fios or Satellite is maybe 8-15 yrs away. OTA even lonegr unless some major compression codes are developed. And it might take that long to develop as well.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gio12 said:


> From what I have read and heard, a 1080p broadcast via Cable, Fios or Satellite is maybe 8-15 yrs away. OTA even lonegr unless some major compression codes are developed. And it might take that long to develop as well.


Thanks, but that's not the question. I tried to make that clear; I apologize if I failed in that regard.

The question surrounds the likelihood and/or feasibility of a HD DVR which can upconvert/deinterlace (as the case may be) the existing formats to 1080p and output that upconverted/deinterlaced material to 1080p TVs -- iow, a 1080p HD DVR (despite no 1080p broadcast material), or, perhaps more accurately, a 1080p Upconverting HD DVR.

Currently my TV does a fairly decent job of upscaling/deinterlacing whatever is thrown at it (so, I leave Native "on"), but it could always be better, and if DirecTV does do this and does it properly with solid video processor, it could potentially be like having a 1080p upscaling DVD Player, only for your Sat source or an external video processor and HD DVR all rolled into one. That could be very, very nice.

Since the technology is already "there", it shouldn't be a difficult device to "create", and the marketing advantages of being able to sell a "1080p HD DVR" is undeniable.

I'm just wondering if others would be interested in such a thing and whether there is any news (or speculation, for that matter) of it as a possibility.

--Mav


----------



## Draconis2941 (Aug 30, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> ... The question surrounds the likelihood and/or feasibility of a HD DVR which can upconvert/deinterlace (as the case may be) the existing formats to 1080p and output that upconverted/deinterlaced material to 1080p TVs ...


I don't really see a big market for this. As cygnusloop mentioned...



cygnusloop said:


> ...my HDTV does a good job of objectively (via testing) and subjectively (it looks good to me) deinterlacing 1080i to 1080p. Others, with sets that have issues in this regard (and this is NOT a price thing, some cheaper sets do well while some very pricey sets don't) could certainly benefit...


So, in the end, people who have 1080p probably already have the capability to upconvert. Where is the need for DirecTv to spend the time and money developing a feature that will most likely duplicate a capability that a nich market of the HDTV market already has.

Yes, dispite all the hype, I view 1080p as a niche market, but I won't digress here.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Draconis2941 said:


> I don't really see a big market for this. As cygnusloop mentioned...


Actually, Cygnusloop intimated that he didn't know whether there would be enough of a market for this.



> So, in the end, people who have 1080p probably already have the capability to upconvert. Where is the need for DirecTv to spend the time and money developing a feature that will most likely duplicate a capability that a nich market of the HDTV market already has.


Well, since there's no broadcast 1080p content, and 1080p TVs can only display 1080p, everyone with a 1080p TV that can accept less than a 1080p source (which I think is pretty much every 1080p TV) has the ability to upconvert, sort of by definition. The issue is how well that process is performed. It wouldn't be "duplicating" the capability. Granted, it would be doing the same tasks (upscaling/deinterlacing, as the case may be), but, if done correctly, it would be doing them better. People spend thousands of dollars on standalone video processors to do it "better". There are entire markets for devoted to upscaling DVD players in all price ranges so that people can watch their stock of 480i/p DVDs upscaled *well" on their 1080p televisions. Stands to reason that the next logical step would be a HD Sat or Cable receiver that does the same thing for less-than-1080p broadcast material (i.e. all of it).



> Yes, dispite all the hype, I view 1080p as a niche market, but I won't digress here.


The question of whether or not 1080p is worth all of the hype is a question for another day and another thread (there's some of that discussion going on in the thread linked in my OP), but it's a little hard to argue with teh fact that, rightly or wrongly, 1080p is the direction everyone is headed.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> Thanks, but that's not the question. I tried to make that clear; I apologize if I failed in that regard.
> 
> The question surrounds the likelihood and/or feasibility of a HD DVR which can upconvert/deinterlace (as the case may be) the existing formats to 1080p and output that upconverted/deinterlaced material to 1080p TVs -- iow, a 1080p HD DVR (despite no 1080p broadcast material), or, perhaps more accurately, a 1080p Upconverting HD DVR.
> 
> ...


OK! I am sure they could but I don't see a real ned for it. They need to get all their DVR at 100% realiabilty first, better PQ for SD and better CSR before spending money on somethinglike this.

Then again it should not be that hard or EXPENSIVE!


----------



## fetzervalve (Dec 26, 2007)

gio12 said:


> From what I have read and heard, a 1080p broadcast via Cable, Fios or Satellite is maybe 8-15 yrs away.....


By that time 1080p will todays SD and no one will want it.......:nono2:


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

it's all a moo point


----------



## final_thrill (Jun 5, 2006)

I would buy it assuming that it upconverts/deinterlaces better than my tv.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

fetzervalve said:


> By that time 1080p will todays SD and no one will want it.......:nono2:


It's taken how long to actually get HD broadcast implemented in this country and you think 1080p is going to be on the way out the door in 8-15 years? Plenty of people are still "happy" with 480i today.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

final_thrill said:


> I would buy it assuming that it upconverts/deinterlaces better than my tv.


Me too.

--Mav


----------



## fetzervalve (Dec 26, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> It's taken how long to actually get HD broadcast implemented in this country and you think 1080p is going to be on the way out the door in 8-15 years?


Yep, write it down.


----------



## sailermon (Oct 17, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Thanks, but that's not the question. I tried to make that clear; I apologize if I failed in that regard.
> 
> The question surrounds the likelihood and/or feasibility of a HD DVR which can upconvert/deinterlace (as the case may be) the existing formats to 1080p and output that upconverted/deinterlaced material to 1080p TVs -- iow, a 1080p HD DVR (despite no 1080p broadcast material), or, perhaps more accurately, a 1080p Upconverting HD DVR.
> 
> ...


DirecTV is interested in selling subscriptions to content. Their hardware doesn't have to stand on its own merit.

I seriously doubt that DTV would spend the money to develop better up-converting and de-interlacing capabilities than say Panasonic or other electronics manufacturers that have to develop hardware that does a better job than their competitors and that have been doing it very well for a long time.

This is the very reason I don't let the HR2x do anything to the source and let my 1080p HDTV do all the scaling, de-interlacing, stretching, etc. That's also why I really appreciate the Native, as Broadcast setting.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

sailermon said:


> DirecTV is interested in selling subscriptions to content. Their hardware doesn't have to stand on its own merit.
> 
> I seriously doubt that DTV would spend the money to develop better up-converting and de-interlacing capabilities than say Panasonic or other electronics manufacturers that have to develop hardware that does a better job than their competitors and that have been doing it very well for a long time.
> 
> This is the very reason I don't let the HR2x do anything to the source and let my 1080p HDTV do all the scaling, de-interlacing, stretching, etc. That's also why I really appreciate the Native, as Broadcast setting.


Very, very good point. Hadn't thought of it in those terms, but you make a very good point. Same here on the TV vs. HR20 -- the TV does a better job of performing those tasks, so I just have the HR20 pass it "native" (a feature I am also thankful for). Indeed, they'd have a pretty long way to go to produce a box that does it actually *better* than my TV. But, again, if they did, I'd buy it.

That said, since they're in the hardware business anyway (even if it is secondary), it stands to some reason that they might want to develop superior hardware and, if properly marketed, might actually see some benefit to doing this. This is, sort of a unique situation that puts a little bit of a wrench in the subscriptions/hardware dichotomy, since the ONLY way for them to take advantage of the "1080p hype" (as someone else lovingly referred to it as) would be to make a hardware improvement since, of course, there are no 1080p broadcast sources.

Of course, it's pretty unlikely that they'd be giving any of them away for free if they did this "right" -- much to the chagrin of the subscriber base who has grown accustom to being able to haggle down to free (or close, anyway) -- so while there may be motive for them to produce a box that does output 1080p, there's a countervailing motive for them to do it "right"; and, if they don't do it "right", imho, they might as well not do it at all.

--Mav


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

sailermon said:


> I seriously doubt that DTV would spend the money to develop better up-converting and de-interlacing capabilities than say Panasonic or other electronics manufacturers that have to develop hardware that does a better job than their competitors and that have been doing it very well for a long time.


+1

I would think that the "built-in" scalers in 1080p HDTVs would be better, since those will be higher end items.

I think that most owners of "better to best" HDTVs use native output and let the TV do the work, with better PQ results.


----------



## rsblaski (Jul 6, 2003)

As has been mentioned, it would all depend on the quality of the de-interlacing and upscaling. I would not need it as my 1080p Mits dlp tv does not accept 1080p input and all native resolutions are nicely de-interlaced and upscaled by the tv. (I also have the option of having my Denon 4306 upconvert 480 and 720p to 1080i, but I just pass the signals through and let the tv do all the work.)
However, for those who have tvs that accept 1080p signals, a receiver that would do a better job of de-interlacing than their tv might be worth having.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> it's all a moo point


Ok Joey...Chandler called and he wants his sweater vest back.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> 1080p was never in the pipe for HR21 pro, it was an error in the prototype's lettering.
> 
> As I've said before, never say never but there are definitely no products in the immediate future for DIRECTV with 1080p, and no programming.


Wow, a lot has changed in 6 months! Now that Dish Network has announce a software update to permit its boxes to output 1080p (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=134638) and DirecTV has announced that 1080p VOD/PPV will be part of the D11 satellite rollout (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=134302), it's starting to look like DVRs capable of upscaling/deinterlacing to 1080p is becoming a reality!

--Mav


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, as I'm the guy you quoted, I'll respond. 

Considering it's been six months since that statement and no 1080p products have come out, it seems I was right. 

However, as DIRECTV has announced that 1080p On Demand programming will be available, clearly the hardware for playing it must be in our future. I don't know what to say other than that, and to point out that according to Broadcom's product literature, the BCM7401 chip in the HR20s and HR21s is capable of 1080p24. What DIRECTV chooses to do with this capability, whether in current or future devices, is up to them.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, as I'm the guy you quoted, I'll respond.
> 
> Considering it's been six months since that statement and no 1080p products have come out, it seems I was right.
> 
> However, as DIRECTV has announced that 1080p On Demand programming will be available, clearly the hardware for playing it must be in our future. I don't know what to say other than that, and to point out that according to Broadcom's product literature, the BCM7401 chip in the HR20s and HR21s is capable of 1080p24. What DIRECTV chooses to do with this capability, whether in current or future devices, is up to them.


Sorry, Stuart, I wasn't implying you were wrong or anything like that at all, I was just remarking on how just 6 short months ago, the general consensus (both here and at AVS) was that boxes capable of outputting 1080p (and, in cases of non-VOD/PPV or other internet-sourced 1080p content, capable of upscaling to 1080p) was just not reasonably on the horizon, and now, it's here. It really is something that 6 months can make that big of a difference! That's all I'm saying.

--Mav


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Oh, heck, I'm wrong all the time, probably over 50% of the time! Just not this time :lol:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I've been participated in a few such threads as a proponent of coming 1080p, but each time 100s opponents stomped on and told NO.
Now time quickly come, but those ppl turn for 180 degree and become best knowledgeable in 1080p area.


----------



## llarch (Aug 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I've been participated in a few such threads as a proponent of coming 1080p, but each time 100s opponents stomped on and told NO.
> Now time quickly come, but those ppl turn for 180 degree and become best knowledgeable in 1080p area.


I hear you P Smith, true. The only thing I can say, in defense of the many forum members who explained in detail why D* would not be doing 1080P anytime soon, is they were speaking mostly from a technical perspective, where D* is making the move more from a marketing perspective, so the change to "support" 1080P was not easily anticipated, in many ways, it doesn't make sense (PQ will probably not be any different).


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

My guess is that they will have to come out with a new receiver to support any 1080p, whether the content is delivered via satellite or Ethernet. They’ll need to do “something” to get more up-front lease fees and two-year commitments out of us!


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

I'm always surprised when a forum like this - with so many folks who have DVR's - discuss this topic _only_ in the context of streaming.

I've been playing 1080p content downloaded from the Web on my HDTV for quite a while, now. I have the "standard" Comcast 6mbps broadband with "Burst" - and I hit 16-20mbps; though, frankly, if I'm downloading, I'm usually doing something else and pay no attention to download time.


----------



## VideoVeteran (Dec 12, 2006)

Does anyone know technical details of this announcement with any credible source that can answer this question:

Will the 1080p movies they offer be offered using 
A: 1920x1080x24fps ="1080p"
B: 1920x1080x30fps ="1080p"
C: 1920x1080x60fps = "1080p"

This makes a BIG difference, yet all can be described as 1080p signals. The only one that is difficult is (C) above. And the value of this format for Movies is non-existant since movies are filmed at 24fps. The value of (C) is with high-motion sports! 

Since the annoucement specifically mentioned movies in this format, I'm inclined to think it really means (A) above, which is easy to do and probably already supported by the existing HD-STBs.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

We will verify it soon.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

VideoVeteran said:


> Does anyone know technical details of this announcement with any credible source that can answer this question:
> 
> Will the 1080p movies they offer be offered using
> A: 1920x1080x24fps ="1080p"
> ...


"C" is not supported by either DVB or ATSC delivery, so is not on the menu unless by DOD.

"B" is possible, but not practical. It would probably be 29.97 fps instead of 30, actually, which is kind of a _de facto _standard (otherwise it becomes incompatible with broadcast). IOW, it makes little sense to go 30 fps since no one else really uses that and you may want to sell the content to broadcast at some point, where that would screw up the run times a bit.

"A" is actually being used currently (and it is practical to extract a 1080p30 copy from it losslessly for broadcast, although that is not much of an advantage at all over 1080i and would probably have to be delivered by broadcast as 1080i). In many cases when a movie is telecine-d to 1080p24, or video is captured originally as true 1080p24, it can be delivered at 1080i by sat or broadcast, and that can be reconstructed by many late-model HD displays back into "true" 1080p.

Not all 1080p has the potential benefits of "true" 1080p, however (and by "true" I mean originally produced as 1080p with both the resolution and the non-interlace component kept intact). Everything that you see on your 1080p-native set is technically 1080p (it fits the requirements of being scanned progressively and having 1080 scan lines, which is the basic definition of "1080p"), even if it's rescaled (and reinterlaced if necessary) by that display from 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i, which all content is for every 1080p-native display. Content could also theoretically be captured as 1080i and delivered as 1080p, but would of course still have the interlace error limitations of 1080i. That means that "1080p" doesn't always imply "better". To really have the benefit of higher resolution than 720p AND no interlace error AND an equivalent frame rate to 720p, you need "C".

1080p as a delivery format has cachet, in that there is a (false) perception that it is significantly better than anything else. That is probably because in the consumers' mind it has been pre-established that "1080p" as regards a native display format is generally accepted as being significantly-better than 720p or 768p (the other two main native display formats). But the advantage of "1080p" as a display technology does not actually translate to a similar improvement in content or delivery technology.

The spin-meisters would like us to make the intuitive leap that 1080p content/delivery is also significantly-better, but the reality is that it is not, not even 1080p60. It's really only incrementally better, if even that. 1080i has a nearly-imperceptible drawback (over 720p) of slower frame rate and interlace error making still shots better but motion maybe not so good as 720p, while 720p has a nearly-imperceptible drawback (over 1080i) of a lower potential resolution (which works out not to be as dramatic as might be expected) making still shots not possibly as good as 1080i while motion resolves better than 1080i due to a combination of higher frame rate and lack of interlace error. True 1080p60 has neither of those drawbacks of 720p or 1080i, but removing two nearly-imperceptible drawbacks leaves us with an end result that is only marginally better than either 720p or 1080i at best, if really at all.

The penalty of twice the bandwidth seems to trump any small technical benefit or false marketing hype advantage, or at least it probably will for a few years, anyway when bandwith is less of an issue. It appears that the only true 1080p we will see from DTV for some time will probably be via DOD, where there is no real-time bandwidth issue such as there is via DVB or ATSC.


----------



## OverThereTooMuch (Aug 19, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> I've been playing 1080p content downloaded from the Web on my HDTV for quite a while, now.


From where?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"The penalty of twice the bandwidth" - quite blind statement, if you will recall how H.264 or VC-1 compressing. Hint: I, P, B frames.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

P Smith said:


> "The penalty of twice the bandwidth" - quite blind statement, if you will recall how H.264 or VC-1 compressing. Hint: I, P, B frames.


Quite a true statement, actually, and well-supported by every textbook on the subject. Your hint is also worthless. I, P, B frames would still be employed exactly as they are now, but even if not that would not affect comparitively how many bits it takes to transport 1080p60, which is why the infrastructure for new HD routers is now 3G, as opposed to 1.5G for current equipment, with the new bandwidth requirements being upgraded _precisely _to handle 1080p. Compression efficiency may increase, but no more for 1080i than for 1080p. Even compressed with whatever becomes the cutting-edge technology, twice as big before compression means twice as big after. Regardless how efficient things become compression-wise, 1080p60 still will always need twice the bandwidth of 1080i for an equivalent level of artifacting. That is unless you'd be willing to accept significantly more artifacting from 1080p60 sent in an equivalent bandwidth.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Well, as I'm the guy you quoted, I'll respond.
> 
> Considering it's been six months since that statement and no 1080p products have come out, it seems I was right.
> 
> However, as DIRECTV has announced that 1080p On Demand programming will be available, clearly the hardware for playing it must be in our future.


I believe that someone at DirecTV has already stated that current HD receivers will be able to display the recently promised 1080p content.



> I don't know what to say other than that, and to point out that according to Broadcom's product literature, the BCM7401 chip in the HR20s and HR21s is capable of 1080p24. What DIRECTV chooses to do with this capability, whether in current or future devices, is up to them.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that the BCM7401 is only in the HR21s (and the R22s?). The HR20s have the BCM7411, and although 1020p/24 isn't specifically listed as one of the 7411's capabilities, given DirecTV's statement about current HD DVRs being able to display 1080/p24 content, it probably is.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> I believe that someone at DirecTV has already stated that current HD receivers will be able to display the recently promised 1080p content.
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure that the BCM7401 is only in the HR21s (and the R22s?). The HR20s have the BCM7411, and although 1020p/24 isn't specifically listed as one of the 7411's capabilities, given DirecTV's statement about current HD DVRs being able to display 1080/p24 content, it probably is.


I don't think the chip matters. Every ATSC and DVB decoder on the planet is capable of decoding all 18 formats, including 1080p, so it would be folly indeed to even design a chip that didn't. As far as computational intensity, it is likely not a factor either. We are only talking about a doubling of the data rate even at 1080p60, which is nothing compared to how computationally intensive decoding MPEG-4 is compared to MPEG-2.

Does anyone really think that DTV would bet their money on a system-wide sweeping infrastructure changeover that did not include a new DVR (the current HR2x) that was capable of anything they expected to throw at it for the next few years? Or that they would even breathe out loud the possibility of 1080p content if the HR2x wasn't up to handling it?


----------



## OverThereTooMuch (Aug 19, 2006)

TomCat said:


> Does anyone really think that DTV would bet their money on a system-wide sweeping infrastructure changeover that did not include a new DVR (the current HR2x) that was capable of anything they expected to throw at it for the next few years? Or that they would even breathe out loud the possibility of 1080p content if the HR2x wasn't up to handling it?


Definitely. They bet their money on their own DVR when they already had Tivo. They've had a lot of problems to work out. Many here have stated that they are sacrificing stability for the sake of new features, and they don't consider it a good trade.

They had to do something to react to Dish's announcement. They may have decided that it would cost them more to not look like the HD leader than to replace some existing hardware.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

OverThereTooMuch said:


> They may have decided that it would cost them more to not look like the HD leader than to replace some existing hardware.


How many million HD receivers do you expect DirecTV to replace _before the end of the year_??


----------



## OverThereTooMuch (Aug 19, 2006)

GregLee said:


> How many million HD receivers do you expect DirecTV to replace _before the end of the year_??


There may be millions in use, but the numbers that they could reasonably expect to have to replace are probably a lot smaller than that.

How many of those folks have TV's that can display signals in 1080p? 
How many of those folks even know what 1080p is?

Also, the press release says they will OFFER the movies. The PR does not mention which receivers will/will not be able to get it. It also doesn't say if it'll be PPV or VOD (maybe there's other reliable info from DTV clarifying this...I'm just going by what I see in the PR). If it's VOD only, that further limits the number of units they'd potentially have to replace.

The competition here is a great thing. In the end, we'll probably all win. I just hope it doesn't result in higher programming costs for the millions of people that won't gain anything from 1080p programming.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

OverThereTooMuch said:


> ...They bet their money on their own DVR when they already had Tivo. They've had a lot of problems to work out. Many here have stated that they are sacrificing stability for the sake of new features, and they don't consider it a good trade.
> 
> They had to do something to react to Dish's announcement. They may have decided that it would cost them more to not look like the HD leader than to replace some existing hardware.


I'd like some action on that bet. I'd even give odds.

None of your arguments support your theory. They replaced Tivo to keep the hardware in house, to save money and regain control. They have worked out the majority of any problems already. How "many here" might or might not feel about it is irrelevant. The HD DVR / Ka / MPEG-4 transition has been an overwhelming success, if the sub and churn numbers are any guide.

The transition was massive, and required a large investment, but that has already paid off and continues to. A new DVR was integral to it. But something as nebulous as 1080p content which has little if any payoff (or interest) would never warrant a hardware swap, especially on the heels of the first one.

Of course the point is moot because they don't need to do a swap, and were careful to make sure of that when they transitioned to the HR2x in the first place.

The DISH 1080p announcement is hot air. A complete diversion from their increasing status as #2 and not really being a contender in the HD arena. Flopsweat desperation. But some are foolish enough not to recognize that, so a "we can do that too" announcement by DTV was probably not unpredicted.


----------



## Newshawk (Sep 3, 2004)

TomCat said:


> The DISH 1080p announcement is hot air. A complete diversion from their increasing status as #2 and not really being a contender in the HD arena. Flopsweat desperation. But some are foolish enough not to recognize that, so a "we can do that too" announcement by DTV was probably not unpredicted.


I agree with just about all of the above, but I need to remind you that DirecTV was the first to announce 1080p support (last Monday). Dish is the "me too" announcement here. I think they rushed their 1080p upgrade out early to try and steal DirecTV's thunder. I wonder how many issues they will have to contend with.


----------



## VideoVeteran (Dec 12, 2006)

So let me propose a summary:
Both the BCM7401 (in the HR21s) and the BCM7411 in the HR20s can decode 1920x1080x24p signals. 
Neither the BCM7401 (in the HR21s) nor the BCM7411 in the HR20s can decode 1920x1080x60p signals. 
1920x1080x30p is almost never used.

Movies and TV programs shot originally on film are almost always coded at 24p (because it saves bits).

Any implication of these recent press announcments on coding must mean that DirecTV uses 1080x24p coding (not 1080x60p). (This is not news, because everyone already does this.)

However, I haven't seen any discussion about the output of the STB over the HDMI port. Version1.3 of that spec permits uncompressed data at 1920x1080x60p. This mode is supported by many of the latest DTVs on the market sold as "True HD" or "Full HD" or something similar.

Is it possible that this press release is about some firmware update will enable the current HR20 or HR21 to support HDMI-v1.3 and upscaling to 1920x1080x60p?


----------



## Jason Perlow (Jul 16, 2008)

Maverickster said:


> In the spirit of this thread which is more about the relative merits of the various broadcast formats vis a vis one another and 1080p (which we all recognize is not and, in all likelihood never will be, a broadcast format), I thought I'd take a little informal poll about people's sense regarding the possibility of DirecTV releasing a HD DVR capable of outputing 1080p (even though none of its source material would be 1080p). In the interest of full disclosure, I originally posted this in the above linked thread, but it was a little off-topic and was rightly ignored there.
> 
> Acting under the assumption that there will be no 1080p broadcast material in the near future (if ever), it is an interesting question (to me anyway) whether DirecTV will attempt to capitalize on the popularity of 1080p televisions by creating a HD DVR that will upconvert and output 1080p, then market it as a 1080p HD DVR. Sure, none of the broadcast formats will have changed, but they would honestly be able to advertise a "1080p HD DVR" (in the sense that it's capable of upscaling/deinterlacing the available broadcast formats to 1080p). Not to mention, this hasn't stopped Oppo (and others) from producing upscaling DVD players that output at 1080p, even though they cannot read true 1080p sources (Bluray & HD-DVD).
> 
> ...


I would consider such a beast if it had a built-in Blu-Ray player.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I can't wait to see what happens with this. The implications are pretty huge due to some of the comparisons being made. We'll all have to wait and see.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jason Perlow said:


> I would consider such a beast if it had a built-in Blu-Ray player.


The last thing I want is an integrated Blu-Ray, DVR. Let each accomplish what it is good at. Combining units always comes with a sacrifice of usability or performance. It is also not in DirecTV's best interest.

Look at how hard it has been to get HR10's out of people's hands. Imagine needing to upgrade sometime in the future when people complain that they can't take the receiver because it's also their Blu-Ray player.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

1080p24 has the potential for more efficient compression only because the same line represents the same part of the picture in the next frame. With 1080i60, this is not the case. Any advantage gained by one over the other will be miniscule and more likely dependent on the display's performance than anything else. We all know that there are a lot of expensive TVs out there that do not handle 1080p24 as well as they should. In theory, you should get something closer to the source material. In practice, there are too many steps in between.

The big difference between Blu-Ray and 1080i as seen on the satellites has little to do with progressive vs interlaced and everything to do with bitrate. Using the same compression techniques, they have much more room for additional picture information in the Blu-Ray disc. Unless DirecTV is giving a ton of bandwidth, there will be little if any benefit.

Will DirecTV give some PPV channels twice as much bandwidth as their brethren (keep in mind the twice as much has nothing to do with p vs i, but with additional picture quality)? This, in essence, means half as many showings simultaneously for PPV. Will they make some HD VOD Offerings twice as large (twice as long to download)? Will they use a ton of bandwidth on Movies Now to put the 1080p movies there?

1080p just gets thrown in there because consumers have a presumption that it means a certain quality. They are wrong. The only way to get more picture quality to the receiver is to alter each 1920x1080 frame less. That requires more bandwidth even with an efficient compression algorithm. Is the marginal increase worth having fewer programming options at some point?

The 1080p announcement, like the one from Dish, is marketing: nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Jason Perlow (Jul 16, 2008)

gregjones said:


> The last thing I want is an integrated Blu-Ray, DVR. Let each accomplish what it is good at. Combining units always comes with a sacrifice of usability or performance. It is also not in DirecTV's best interest.
> 
> Look at how hard it has been to get HR10's out of people's hands. Imagine needing to upgrade sometime in the future when people complain that they can't take the receiver because it's also their Blu-Ray player.


That may be so because Blu-Ray players currently cost 300 bucks or more. When they start getting commoditized like DVD players it will be a different story. What does a decent DVD player HD-upscaler now cost, 80 bucks? Thats what mine cost.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> ...I was just remarking on how just 6 short months ago, the general consensus (both here and at AVS) was that boxes capable of outputting 1080p (and, in cases of non-VOD/PPV or other internet-sourced 1080p content, capable of upscaling to 1080p) was just not reasonably on the horizon, and now, it's here. It really is something that 6 months can make that big of a difference! That's all I'm saying.


I'm in favor of 1080p content, though I'm in the camp that believes I'll see little if any improvement over existing 1080i content displayed on my 1080p set. I'd gladly be wrong and would welcome improved 1080p PQ.

However... I sorely wish that we could have gotten to an MRV announcement within the last 6 months... That IMO would provide much more value to more people.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Thaedron said:


> I'm in favor of 1080p content, though I'm in the camp that believes I'll see little if any improvement over existing 1080i content displayed on my 1080p set. I'd gladly be wrong and would welcome improved 1080p PQ.
> 
> However... I sorely wish that we could have gotten to an MRV announcement within the last 6 months... That IMO would provide much more value to more people.


I think you are right. I think any interconnectivity is a better value than 1080p. A whole home solution to include PCs and other audio/video equipment is the way of the future.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

smiddy said:


> I think you are right. I think any interconnectivity is a better value than 1080p. A whole home solution to include PCs and other audio/video equipment is the way of the future.


That may be, but that's clearly not what's driving this. I think there's pretty universal agreement out there that from a purely "impact" standpoint, this probably isn't that big of a deal -- e.g. the "jump" from 1080i to 1080p is less significant a "jump" than would be MRV or DLB. The difference, of course, is that J6P considering whether to become a DirecTV subscriber "understands" 1080p to be the best format out there; he does not "understand" that MRV and/or DLB would actually be "bigger" improvements.

IOW, if you want to sell more boxes and get more subs, exploit what they "know", and what they "know" is 1080p, not MRV and/or DLB.

--Mav

P.S. All this talk about framerates raises an interesting question. A lot of 1080p TVs have trouble handling 1080p/24 sources (prior to the '08s, the Pioneer Kuro and Kuro Elites were among the few that could handle it reliably), so can DirecTV really be thinking of having these boxes output that? I kind of doubt it. It will definitely be interesting to see how they solve that little dillema -- current DirecTV equipment can't do 1080p/60 (at least, that's what I've gathered), and most "legacy" (i.e. prior to the current model year) 1080p TVs don't really handle 1080p/24 very well. So, how are they going to make this work?


----------



## ericlhyman (Jul 11, 2003)

When are they going to provide full 1080i in their regular HD channels, instead of quasi 1080i?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

What do you mean by "full" 1080i"? Higher bitrate?


----------



## gp4rts (Aug 19, 2006)

I saw this announcement, and I assume that what this thread is talking about:

"DISH Network, the satellite TV provider, last week became one of the first TV broadcasters in the United States to transmit a full 1080p/24 (1920 x 1080 progressive) resolution program to its subscribers. The offering, which began Aug. 1, was a video-on-demand selection of the feature film, “I Am Legend.”

EchoStar’s DISH said it will start offering feature films shot in the 1080p/24 format whenever the content is available, claiming it’s the same quality as Blu-ray video discs. Until now, other services have transmitted the 1080i (interlaced) or 720p HD formats. For consumers, VOD offers the higher image quality but at a lower price than renting a disc, the direct-to-home satellite company said.

The 1080p upgrade is a no-charge addition for anyone who owns an HD DVR capable of playing MPEG-4 video. A software upgrade is being made available that allows the 1080p service.

Competitor DIRECTV said last week that, in addition to adding 30 new HDTV channels starting on Aug. 14, it will transmit movies in 1080p by the end of the year. The satellite provider also said it plans to be the first company to distribute all of its HD programming in the MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding standard with Dolby Digital Audio by the end of this month. DIRECTV is also planning to launch its 12th satellite next year, which will push its national HD service offering to 200 channels.

The Web site Electronista said the DISH milestone closes one of the perceived image quality gaps between TV and pre-recorded forms of HD such as Blu-ray (also delivered in the 1080p/24 format) and digital downloads. While downloads in particular are rarely offered in 1080p, both these and Blu-ray often provide better image quality than most live TV, which is hampered by the frequent need to heavily compress the signal in order to save bandwidth space so it can be transmitted easily.

The “New York Times” ran a column challenging whether the DISH 1080p service quality equals that of a Blu-ray disc. It quoted Pete Putman, a TV engineer and owner of Roam Consulting, who said for a 1080p to look like at Blu-ray program the service would have to increase its bit rate to 16Mb/s or 18Mb/s. Putman believes that both DISH and its competitor, DIRECTV, are sending out signals at about 6Mb/s to 8Mb/s in order to conserve transponder capacity."

I took this to mean that the receiver/DVR would actually output 1080/24p, like the blu-ray player does. However, this is of value only to those who have 1080p TV sets with 120Hz refresh and 1080/24p input capability. Then each 24Hz frame generates 5 120Hz frames and there is no 3:2 telecine "judder" artifact.

However, the article says "transmit" and does not say the receiver will ouput 24p. If the receiver outputs 60i or 60p, I see no advantage to this (except maybe marketing hype), since 3:2 telecine would have to be employed by the receiver. If the output is 60i, the set would have to do inverse telecine to generate 1080p for display; that is what happens now with any 60i film-derived material, so what's the deal? Does the receiver even have the capability of 3:2 telecine encoding? This all needs clarification.


----------



## the_dudeman (Jun 19, 2008)

Your kidding right? The hr21 can't even scale decently. I doubt D* could even make such a dvr, now anyway even if there were programing and the necessary compression.

Sorry, just have started to loathe my hr21.

dudeman


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

the_dudeman said:


> Your kidding right? The hr21 can't even scale decently. I doubt D* could even make such a dvr, now anyway even if there were programing and the necessary compression.
> 
> Sorry, just have started to loathe my hr21.
> 
> dudeman


You already have a DVR that can handle 1080p, programming exists, MPEG4 can handle the compression and after two years I have yet to see any scaling problems, although I do let my TV perform that function.


----------



## scorom (Aug 16, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> 1080p was never in the pipe for HR21 pro, it was an error in the prototype's lettering.
> 
> As I've said before, never say never but there are definitely no products in the immediate future for DIRECTV with 1080p, and no programming.


Hello,

I just received my September copy of Home Theatre Magizing and the inside Front Cover has a 2 page ad with the HR-21 Pro on it.

The resolution buttons on the right of the unit are labled:

480i, 480p, 720p and 1080p

If mistake as stated above you would think that it would have been corrected before ad was OK'd???


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Just ask yourself - if it not a mistake, then where is 1080i mode ?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Just ask yourself - if it not a mistake,


I posted the same thing here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=135963

but the consensus was that the original ad was pre-CEDIA a year ago. Can't they fix a mistake like that in a year?:eek2:


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

gp4rts said:


> ...the article says "transmit" and does not say the receiver will ouput 24p. If the receiver outputs 60i or 60p, I see no advantage to this (except maybe marketing hype), since 3:2 telecine would have to be employed by the receiver. If the output is 60i, the set would have to do inverse telecine to generate 1080p for display; that is what happens now with any 60i film-derived material, so what's the deal? Does the receiver even have the capability of 3:2 telecine encoding? This all needs clarification.


Maybe I can provide a little. For one thing, Wikepedia states that all download-based 1080p on the internet is of the 1080p24 variety. This probably indicates that DBS 1080p will also be 1080p24, and not 1080p60, which is the one not available as a ATSC format and takes twice the bandwidth of 1080i30 (since it has twice the pixel rate). 1080p24 has only a minor advantage over 1080i30 (no interlace error), and some disadvantages (lower flicker rate and motion artifacts from the lower frame rate). It has a minor advantage over 720p (higher potential resolution) with again the same disadvantages. It might then be slightly better for low-motion content than 1080i30, but would likely not be better for high-motion content than 720p.

But surprisingly enough, 1080p24 is broadcast all of the time by stations that typically broadcast 1080i30 whenever they broadcast a movie or other film or video content which has original frame rate of 24 fps.

The Standard Handbook of Video and Television Engineering describes a universal aspect of ATSC encoding/decoding referred to as "film mode", present in all compliant encoders and decoders. Briefly, if the encoder senses 3:2 pulldown in the source material (easily done by comparing consecutive frames), it essentially reverts to 1080p24 by reversing the pulldown and broadcasting in progressive mode. All ATSC tuners can employ film mode as a requirement of their compliance to ATSC. One would assume that DVB HD decoding (used by DBS) would act much the same.

The encoder informs the decoder through a metadata flag that "film mode" is in effect. For stations who typically transmit all other video as 1080i30 (which is virtually all not transmitting in 720p or 480i) the decoder then can recreate the pullup directly, and even though the signal is sent as 1080p24, will reconstruct it as 1080i30. The advantage of more efficient coding is realized, but the pullup reinserts judder, so even when the signal is later scanned progressively by a 1080p display, there will be artifacts from that which would not be there in 1080p24.

Would this be the same as Blu-Ray quality? Not exactly. Most movies are 24fps to begin with, so for them there would be the advantage of no interlace error over content encoded as 1080i, but there would be that minimal judder created by the pulldown, at least for broadcast.

Why don't stations that chose 1080i30 use 1080p24 directly for film content, since they essentially send it as 1080p24 in the first place and since it doesn't have the bandwidth requirements that prevent them from sending 1080p60? Probably because legacy video and even all newer video is broadcast at 30 fps (actually 29.97). Theoretically they could. The problem comes when you try to insert 1080i30 commercials into a 1080p24 movie. There would be a screen refresh and new handshake that would glitch like crazy, not unlike the way your multisync monitor adjusts to new settings. To prevent that from happening, even though 24 fps content is broadcast as 1080p24 to reap the coding efficiency advantage, the decoder creates 3:2 pulldown to keep the format the same as all of the other 30 fps video sent, which unfortunately adds a little judder.

That means that 24 fps content has no interlace error when broadcast as 1080i30 (while true 30 fps content still does) but the lower frame rate offsets its suitability for sports and action content, making 720p probably still a better choice. Bottom line, 1080p from DBS will most likely not have much advantage at all over either 1080i30 or 720p, and will certainly not be as good as true 1080p60 which Blu-Ray is capable of (although most content for Blu will still be 24 fps).


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

ericlhyman said:


> When are they going to provide full 1080i in their regular HD channels, instead of quasi 1080i?


 All "regular" MPEG-4 HD channels are either 1280x720 (full 720p), or 1920x1080 (full 1080i), which is what the ATSC standard (more rigorous than the DVB standard DTV uses) calls for. If you are referring to "HD Lite", that only affects some MPEG-2 channels, which will disappear before becoming truly ATSC-compliant HD. If that is not what you're talking about, you will have to define "quasi" for us.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

VideoVeteran said:


> ...I haven't seen any discussion about the output of the STB over the HDMI port. Version1.3 of that spec permits uncompressed data at 1920x1080x60p. This mode is supported by many of the latest DTVs on the market sold as "True HD" or "Full HD" or something similar.
> 
> Is it possible that this press release is about some firmware update will enable the current HR20 or HR21 to support HDMI-v1.3 and upscaling to 1920x1080x60p?


That's an excellent question. HDMI (at least older flavors) assumes 1.485 GB/s for full uncompressed video. 1080p60 needs 3G, which is why TV equipment vendors are supporting "3G" capability in the latest routers and switchers they are selling to TV stations and networks (just in case 1080p60 ever comes to pass, even though it likely won't).

It may be that if there were 1080p60 content (and we both agree that is a very remote possibility) that it would be restricted to component outputs (which should work just as well as HDMI).


----------

