# Whats NOT in 4.01



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

Well for starters almost everything anyone every asked for.

•No native pass through
•No USB external hard drive support
•No active LAN port
•NO RSN HDs
•No Dolby5.1 through HDMI

Things added no one really cares about:

•DishComm (won't work on probably 95% of setups anyway)
•HD map downs


Things it still has that no one wants:

•VOD
•SD PPV
•That TV/Entertainment VOD



So besides the PIP split screen (which I can already do with my TV) is there actually anything worthwhile in this release? Something that justifies the nearly 5 months work on it?


----------



## renpar61 (Aug 5, 2006)

ebaltz said:


> Well for starters almost everything anyone every asked for.
> 
> •No native pass through
> •No USB external hard drive support
> ...


Amen to that!

BTW, I didn't even know about no Dolby 5.1 via HDMI. I was on the market for a new receiver to simplify the cable runs (now I have HDMI directly to the TV). Not so much after this piece of information. Thanks!


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

Actually 5.1 via the HDMI is in L4.01 and it is working great.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

I don't have an HDMI A/V receiver to test it but I have seen several others report in the L4.01 Experience thread that DD 5.1 was working over HDMI. Are you confused about this one or did I just think I read it?


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

And you'll see that lots of people really like the HD mapdown.


----------



## teachsac (Jun 10, 2006)

lakebum431 said:


> Actually 5.1 via the HDMI is in L4.01 and it is working great.


It sure is. I've hooked it up to a Denon 4806 and a Lexicon MC12HD and it works perfectly on both. Unfortunately, my second 622 didn't get 4.01 and when I switched it out, the HDMI didn't work. I'll run the HDMI reset when it does get the upgrade and if that doesn't fix it, I'll swap it out.

HD RSN's would not be in a software release. It is programming.

External Hard Drive support is reported to be coming later (maybe this summer).

Scott


----------



## jacobm69 (Mar 21, 2007)

Not sure about ebaltz and renpar61 but Dolby 5.1 through HDMI is working great for me since L4.01 update. Also love the mapdown and improved OTA signals


----------



## Marriner (Jan 23, 2006)

Really really want external Hard Drive support. Really really DON'T want some E* nickel and dime fee to activate it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

ebaltz said:


> •NO RSN HDs
> •SD PPV


You do realize that these are not receiver features but are program offerings that are there (or not) regardless of the software version?

There are also bug fixes that won't make "the list" - and you are selling short the HD enhancements that are on L4.01.

One feature specifically requested was the ability to set a DishPASS that would only record HD or SD ... or prefer one over the other when there is a choice (such as an airing on HBO/HBOHD) ... that is in L4.01. I'd say that the acceptance of the mapdown feature is 50-50 and growing toward higher acceptance after the initial shock. Plenty of comments supportive of the HD mapdown in the L4.01 thread.

Plus the 622 has DLB (dual live buffers). Tell every D* HR20 user that you know! 

The other stuff will come. It was not promised as part of L4.01 and was specifically stated as being later in the year. I don't know why you expected them now.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

ebaltz said:


> •No native pass through


:nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:

It's my only complaint about the 622.


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

James Long said:


> There are also bug fixes that won't make "the list" - and you are selling short the HD enhancements that are on L4.01.


This speaks volumes. A s/w release, all "5 months worth of work", is mostly about bug fixes, and not about added features. Perks and features is a plus, the goal is a on-going effort to achieve the best possible software for its application.

The HD enhancement integration must have been a monumental task, considering the lack of any form of standardization used throughout the broadcast industry.

I, for one, applaud DISH for their accomplishment in creating 4.01, and release it in a seemingly polished and bug-free version. Collecting all the data, sifting through all the reports, fixing the bugs, and adding features, so all users machines operate normally, in a spider-webbed industry where no one is on the same page...a job well done.

It's amusing how short the memory span can sometimes be.


----------



## marcuscthomas (May 4, 2006)

Don't forget the sticky buffers. For those of us who learned to watch on the TIVO, this is a much appreciated feature.

My HDMI port hasn't worked since the first month that I have had my 622, so I don't know about the 5.1 support.

I would appreciate that external storage support. Although I use my pocketdish right now to offload stuff. But, I can't put anything back onto the 622. I have to watch it straight out of the pocketdish...and no HD in the pocketdish.


----------



## teddy (Jun 9, 2006)

heisman said:


> :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2:
> 
> It's my only complaint about the 622.


Amen to the native pass through. I would think this is easy to do! :nono2: 
5.1 DD through the HDMI is great! The lack of this feature caused lots of confusion.:hurah: :hurah:


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

lakebum431 said:


> And you'll see that lots of people really like the HD mapdown.


And some of us want DishComm to work. I won't know if mine works until my second 622 is updated. Currently have a wire run across the floor and down a stair, as I thought it was not going to be long before it was activated (back last July).


----------



## bruin95 (Apr 23, 2006)

I think you guys scared away the OP. :lol:


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Well lets.. if you go to the Wish List. This release knocks off 3 items off the list.. These would be DD 5.1 through HDMI, Increase Timers, and DishComm. Also if you go through the list.. PIP side by Side is mentioned a few times and so is Sticky pause.. 

As for the Map Down, I suggest going through the L4.01 posts. There are a number of people that find it useful. Some don't.. Not ever feature.. everyone will find useful.

Dishcomm useless for 95%.. Well perhaps it does not have a lot of value for the folks here because we tend to use UPSs and Power Conditioners. However, I bet we are in the minority here and if DishComm get roll into other receivers it will have more use.

So... What warrents the time... Well as a number of people have indicated.. There seems to be a lot of bug fixes in it. Lot of usability polishing in it. OTA fixes seems to have addressed some big issues for some areas. Also 

Yes I am one of the ones hoping to see Native Pass through and external USB support. THe two biggies on my list but I also see a lot of value in this release, lot a hard work, and I like a number of the features I got. Being a Software Engineer myself, I see the effort. 

The features and bugs I have found fixed so far.

1) PIP Side by Side.
2) DishComm ( I can't use it, but I see value for others)
3) Priority seems to be taken into account with multiple timers of the same show. This is useful for creating SD and Dish HD local back up Timers when you have an OTA conflict. 
4) HD logo stuff. Find it really handy and adds to the usefullness. 
5) HDMI Test. Useful if your HDMI port goes out. 
6) Pause Jump to live
7) Dish Pass HD/SD Priority. Real useful for Planet Earth on Sunday where the EPG is messed up. 
8) Timer Increased. THough I don't run into, I know others do and this really helps. 
9) My audio on my Dish HD locals and National Geo HD seemed to have improved greatly. Still need more time, but it was a big step for me. 

Would I liked to have seen more.. Sure.. Who wouldn't. Am I disappointed in what was released.. Nope.. Happy for it and looking forward to having more rolled in.

Well that is my 2 cents. One word of caution.. This type of thread in the past can rat hole and turn ugly quickly. I have kept it here so people can voice their opinions on the quantity of features and fixes in this release given the time frame in a constructive way. If it because a rock tossing thread it will get tossed into the general forums.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kdg454 said:


> This speaks volumes. A s/w release, all "5 months worth of work", is mostly about bug fixes, and not about added features.


To be fair, if they would have had another 30 days before Thanksgiving last year this we would not have been waiting five months. L3.65 was stable enough that it gave E* a chance to do L4.01 right without the pressure to release at the worst possible time (holiday season).

Meanwhile development on all those other toys for "future releases" could quietly continue. The time will come for those updates. Patience is the key.


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

James Long said:


> Plus the 622 has DLB (dual live buffers). Tell every D* HR20 user that you know!


Amen to that! Perhaps I will jump over to the HR20 forum and rub salt into the wound. 

Ron, can you elaborate on #3?

Can I get an explanation on "Native Pass Through", please.

-Funk


----------



## Marriner (Jan 23, 2006)

James Long said:


> .... The time will come for those updates. Patience is the key.


I am still waiting for Name Based recording on my 510 :lol:


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

thefunks67 said:


> Amen to that! Perhaps I will jump over to the HR20 forum and rub salt into the wound.
> 
> Ron, can you elaborate on #3?
> 
> ...


Sure.. Has been mentioned a few times and looks to me like it has been fixed.

Use case.

I have American Idol that fires ever during the week. I want it to use my OTA timer when possible and use the Dish HD timer when something of higher priority takes up the timer.

Solution.
Create Two timers for American Idol. One for OTA with a higher priority and the other with DishHD with one priority lower. THis way, any OTA timer with a higher priority than AI will use the OTA timer and the AI Dish HD will be used. If there is no OTA conflict the AI OTA TImer gets used. Clear as mud?

I will let someone else explain Native Pass-through. Do a search on the forums. It is talked a lot about here.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Actually... Looks like I might be mistaken on this one. The other night It looked like it was doing what I expected but I just tried it again and it appears not to have the behavior I would have expected. Have to take that one off the list.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

Ron, add to the bug fixes. The scan OTA screen used to cause a re-boot when exited. That seems to be fixed.


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

ChuckA said:


> Ron, add to the bug fixes. The scan OTA screen used to cause a re-boot when exited. That seems to be fixed.


Mine did not reboot when I scanned the OTA channels with 3.66. I did a scan with 4.01 and it rebooted. I don't consider that a biggie because how often does one do a scan. Maybe it was just an anomaly. My receiver has rebooted itself maybe two or three times in the six months I've had it. All in all I'm pretty happy with 4.01. I haven't been through the entire list of tests yet but it's looking pretty good.


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> And some of us want DishComm to work. I won't know if mine works until my second 622 is updated. Currently have a wire run across the floor and down a stair, as I thought it was not going to be long before it was activated (back last July).


DishComm is working for me!


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Just wish I could get the update


----------



## Eagles (Dec 31, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> The features and bugs I have found fixed so far.
> 
> 1) PIP Side by Side.
> 2) DishComm ( I can't use it, but I see value for others)
> ...


Ron,

What is #6, pause jump to live and how does it work? Also one new feature I found that I have not seen mentioned is using the position button to toggle between full and split screen while in the split screen mode. If you're in split screen, push the position button and the active split becomes full. Push the position button again and return to the original split. I think that is a very useful feature, especially for sporting events. 
One thing that was not fixed was the CC display bug. I really think this has something to do with the "foreground opacity" setting as it does not work. I actually took the time to attach a couple of video clips highlighting this problem to my bug report response I sent to Dish Beta Bugs. Maybe they will take a look at it.


----------



## renpar61 (Aug 5, 2006)

So I hear the DD 5.1 HDMI is working with the new software! Yeah baby! I can go shopping for my new receiver


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Eagles said:


> Ron,
> 
> What is #6, pause jump to live and how does it work? Also one new feature I found that I have not seen mentioned is using the position button to toggle between full and split screen while in the split screen mode. If you're in split screen, push the position button and the active split becomes full. Push the position button again and return to the original split. I think that is a very useful feature, especially for sporting events.
> One thing that was not fixed was the CC display bug. I really think this has something to do with the "foreground opacity" setting as it does not work. I actually took the time to attach a couple of video clips highlighting this problem to my bug report response I sent to Dish Beta Bugs. Maybe they will take a look at it.


Maybe I am getting version confused.. There was bug where sometimes when did a pause and then unpause some time later you would jump to Live TV not the position you were. This only happend with Live TV viewing. I have not seen with this version and don't recall it being fixed in 3.65, but maybe my memory recall is not accurate. 

As for CC? I know you use it Eagles. Is it better? Same? or worse?


----------



## Eagles (Dec 31, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> As for CC? I know you use it Eagles. Is it better? Same? or worse?


It's basically the same, which means it's OK for the most part. The bug I refer to has to do with how you set your CC to be displayed using the various options in the CC menu, most notably the "opacity" settings. When you set the background to transparent it creates problems with the CC lettering. It becomes broken up as if it doesn't know weather to display itself in the solid, translucent or transparent mode. The "foreground opacity" setting is not working at all. Changes made in the menu have no affect on the lettering. This leads me to believe that this may be part of the problem. I've had my 622 since June 2006. It has always been like this. These options worked great on my 921. If you want I could send you a couple of video clips to show you exactly what I'm referring to. Email me and I'll reply with the clips attached.


----------



## cloudtamer (Feb 20, 2007)

:soapbox:
I am really disipointed in E*'s Release of L4.01. It was mostly hype on top of hype. I was hoping to do interactive guides through the internet w/ this patch, Satilight and Cable companies need to get their act together to get this working!!! They have this capablity on TIVO, Microsoft Media Center. The only problem is that the tech is not quite up there yet to allow recording of HD though the HDMI or Componet cabling to get the full HD experience. Tivo Comes close, but it only works with HD through Cable. If my area had cable I might have dropped money for TivoHD rather then E*HD. I would have kept the VIP211 if my media center could handle the HDMI input. I believe that becuase there was no Major enhancements (other then graphical, a few things nobody really wanted, and Bug Fixes) this release should have been coded out as L3.70 :whatdidid

Only 2 good things came from the L4.01 in my mind.
1) Better HDMI support. -> No more godzilla naration when watching TV. (You know sound before Lip movement) I had this alot w/ my sony tv before the upgrade forcing me to reboot either the box or the TV.

2) The HD mapping (Showing channels and recorded Contenet w/ HD Symbol)


----------



## Presence (Mar 14, 2004)

You know what I wish had been implemented in this release? Some sort of software change that would make the 622's internal fan run full-time on a slow speed. _Anything _to help the overheating issue. I suppose the fan might be hard-wired to the board and not on software at all.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cloudtamer said:


> I am really disipointed in E*'s Release of L4.01. It was mostly hype on top of hype. I was hoping to do interactive guides through the internet w/ this patch


Hard to blame Dish for your own presumptions, isn't it? I don't recall Dish (including the Tech chat) announcing anything to do with DishOnline as being part of this release.

I do see a lot of folks reading the rumors in various forums, and then creating their own expectations. That is hardly something to blame on Dish.

Frankly, I think they have done a good job here with this release as it appears to have fixed several known bugs and introduced some new features as well.


----------



## liferules (Aug 14, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Create Two timers for American Idol. One for OTA with a higher priority and the other with DishHD with one priority lower. THis way, any OTA timer with a higher priority than AI will use the OTA timer and the AI Dish HD will be used. If there is no OTA conflict the AI OTA TImer gets used.


Ron, I have tried that exact scenario in reverse. I don't get the best OTA reception, so I create duplicates of AI, CSI, etc... using the HD Dish as 1st priority and OTA as second. Despite my prioritizing, the 622 chooses the OTA as 1st priority still. Weekly, I have to go through my timers and "skip" the OTA timers to allow the Dish HD sat timers to record. It gets old...

Has anyone else had this problem? Any ideas on how to fix it?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Hard to blame Dish for your own presumptions, isn't it? I don't recall Dish (including the Tech chat) announcing anything to do with DishOnline as being part of this release.
> 
> I do see a lot of folks reading the rumors in various forums, and then creating their own expectations. That is hardly something to blame on Dish.
> 
> Frankly, I think they have done a good job here with this release as it appears to have fixed several known bugs and introduced some new features as well.


Actually.. DishOnline is not what this guy is ranting about. He is ranting about the ability to do timer managment over the web if I am reading the rant correctly. Something I personally think has a bit of wow factor to it, but in practically I personally don't think I would use it a lot. It could see where it could be handy on that rare time when I forgot to set a timer, but for me personally I would rank this feature pretty low. Native Resolution and external USB support are the two I rank high.


----------



## Stutz342 (Sep 29, 2004)

liferules said:


> Has anyone else had this problem? Any ideas on how to fix it?


Unfortunately, the priority settings do not seem to be used for this like you would think. It seems to go in "natural" order, so whick ever timer is created first is usually the one that wins, but you can't really trust that.

You could try deleting both timers, then creating them in the order of preference, and you might find it gets it right a bit more often.

I just wish the timers were actually processed in priority order. That would make this work as we would want.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Actually.. DishOnline is not what this guy is ranting about. He is ranting about the ability to do timer managment over the web if I am reading the rant correctly.


I could be mistaken... but I thought on the last Tech Chat (not Charlie Chat) when they mentioned DishOnline coming "soon" there was mention of the ability do do this as part of that feature as well.

I could be imagining... but I swear I heard that. I also remember hearing, as noted in my other reply, that neither Dishonline nor that feature were coming with this update.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

They did mention the concept of programming the 622 over the internet. The certainly did not promise or suggest that this would happen any time soon.


----------



## TNGTony (Mar 23, 2002)

What I really want is anamorphic output on the TV2 for dual mode. I have 3 16x9 TVs now and a fourth one coming probably within the year. I know I am a little ahead of the curve here, but I can't be the only one out there with a 622 and more than one 16x9 TV.

And no I cannot run the unit in the single mode, I need two independent units.

See ya
Tony


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

HDMe said:


> I could be mistaken... but I thought on the last Tech Chat (not Charlie Chat) when they mentioned DishOnline coming "soon" there was mention of the ability do do this as part of that feature as well.
> 
> I could be imagining... but I swear I heard that. I also remember hearing, as noted in my other reply, that neither Dishonline nor that feature were coming with this update.


Remote capability has been mentioned. I think it was mentioned in the last Tech Chat, but I would consider them mutually exclusive. If I recall, I could be remembering wrong, they were mentioned at different times.

Either way.. Neither was was ever indicated to be in this release.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

TNGTony said:


> What I really want is anamorphic output on the TV2 for dual mode.


I'll vote for that. Put it back on the SD output of the 211 as well.


----------



## mr1213 (Feb 12, 2007)

lakebum431 said:


> DishComm is working for me!


Pardon my ignorance. What does Dishcomm do?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

mr1213 said:


> Pardon my ignorance. What does Dishcomm do?


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=83362


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

thefunks67 said:


> Can I get an explanation on "Native Pass Through", please.
> 
> -Funk


That puzzles me too. Maybe it means matching the output to the program source? Some programming originates as 480i, some as 720p, some as 1080i. Maybe they want the output of the 622 to switch resolutions depending on source?


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Larry Caldwell said:


> That puzzles me too. Maybe it means matching the output to the program source? Some programming originates as 480i, some as 720p, some as 1080i. Maybe they want the output of the 622 to switch resolutions depending on source?


bingo


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

Larry Caldwell said:


> That puzzles me too. Maybe it means matching the output to the program source? Some programming originates as 480i, some as 720p, some as 1080i. Maybe they want the output of the 622 to switch resolutions depending on source?


Or, more accurately, to allow the 622 to pass the signal thru to the TV or DVDR without doing any conversion of the content so the conversion is done only by the output device.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

you mean of course, no conversion other than the conversion that Dish does to whatever non-ATSC-standard format that comes in on the MPEG-2/4 sream?

I think some kind of conversion to a format compliant with your TV's input is necessary. I'll vote for minimal changing of the signal, or give me a button on the remote to do it myself. Having to get to it through the menus is a PITA. 

On my Oppo DV-981HD DVD player you can press a button on the remote and cycle through all of the output modes and pick the one that looks best on the fly. That would be a nice feature on the 622. You can do the same thing with a HR20 (D*).


----------



## Radner (Oct 24, 2005)

marcuscthomas said:


> Don't forget the sticky buffers. For those of us who learned to watch on the TIVO, this is a much appreciated feature.
> 
> *My HDMI port hasn't worked since the first month that I have had my 622, so I don't know about the 5.1 support.*
> 
> I would appreciate that external storage support. Although I use my pocketdish right now to offload stuff. But, I can't put anything back onto the 622. I have to watch it straight out of the pocketdish...and no HD in the pocketdish.


My HDMI port crapped out after the first month also. I called DISH and they wanted me to jump through a bunch of bells and whistle before they would do anything about it. I said forget it... and than the component video ports stopped working. I called DISH and complained and mentioned about the numerous complaints on the HDMI port not working on the 622 from DBSTalk.com and they sent out a replacement that is working great. I sent the bad receiver back in the box they sent the replacement unit with a prepaid UPS label.

Give them a call, it's worth it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mr.72 said:


> you mean of course, no conversion other than the conversion that Dish does to whatever non-ATSC-standard format that comes in on the MPEG-2/4 sream?


Exactly. That is what I see as the problem with "pass through" ... the signal goes through bandwidth saving steps between the source and your receiver.

The "pass through" would simply be outputting the signal in the ATSC resolution closest to the source instead of in one chosen resolution. The receiver would still handle scaling the output to 480i, 720p or 1080i (depending on what the source was). Then the TV would rescale the picture for display.

It doesn't sound like such a good idea when one puts it that way ... rescaling.


----------



## Teran (Mar 16, 2007)

James Long said:


> ...Then the TV would rescale the picture for display.


As a CRT front projection user I really miss pass-through since there is no scaling done.


----------



## kruser (May 29, 2005)

teachsac said:


> It sure is. I've hooked it up to a Denon 4806 and a Lexicon MC12HD and it works perfectly on both. Unfortunately, my second 622 didn't get 4.01 and when I switched it out, the HDMI didn't work. I'll run the HDMI reset when it does get the upgrade and if that doesn't fix it, I'll swap it out.
> 
> HD RSN's would not be in a software release. It is programming.
> 
> ...


How do you do a "HDMI Reset"?

thanks!


----------



## lakebum431 (Jun 30, 2005)

kruser said:


> How do you do a "HDMI Reset"?
> 
> thanks!


Menu 6, 3, Analysis, HDMI Test, Reset HDMI


----------



## langlin (Apr 8, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Remote capability has been mentioned. I think it was mentioned in the last Tech Chat, but I would consider them mutually exclusive. If I recall, I could be remembering wrong, they were mentioned at different times.
> 
> Either way.. Neither was was ever indicated to be in this release.


I agree it was not to be part of this release.

Actually Dish does "have" this capability with partners AT&T and Yahoo in select AT&T markets called "AT&T Homezone with AT&T/Dish Network Service"

http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=7910


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Teran said:


> As a CRT front projection user I really miss pass-through since there is no scaling done.


Not really.

It all depends on the format that's coming into the TV. The TV requires a certain format (sync rate, number of scan lines, etc.), even if you are using component video input, in order to be able to display the picture correctly. It's even worse for HDMI. So the 622 or whatever box has to provide the TV with some reasonably-standard format picture. It would be foolish to do anything but regular ATSC-compliant HD formats that are in common use.

The problem is that many channels are likely NOT sent to the 622 in one of these ATSC-compliant HD formats.

Let's just talk about maybe IFC which is horrid looking on Dish. This is a signal that comes from the content provider (IFC) as a regular 480i signal, 640x480 pixels @ 30 Hz. Dish Network resamples that obviously at something more like 320x240 pixels @ 8 frames per second in order to cut the bandwidth requirement by a huge amount. So "native pass thru" would do what? Pass this incompatible format to the TV? My TV would not display it. Instead the 622 needs to reconstruct this into an ATSC-compliant signal, in this case the closest match would be 480i. Then your TV can display it.

I think it would just be easier to put a 1080i/720p "mode" button on the remote and allow it to switch while you are watching a channel. Otherwise they are going to have to just program the thing to switch to 480i on SD channels, and on HD channels try and detect whether it is a progressive-scan source or interlaced and either switch to 1080i or 720p but in either case it will be scaled because even 720p or 1080i original content will be changed to something other than the original format for transport between Dish's sat transmitter and the 622, and you need the 622 to convert it yet again so you can see it.

I don't think "native pass thru" is a great idea and in fact it is one major cause of pain on the D* HD-DVR. But I do think a button on the remote to switch from 720p to 1080i is a great idea.


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> I don't think "native pass thru" is a great idea ...


The reason I would like a native pass-thru option is because of the quirky nature of my TV. I have an old 4x3 CRT HDTV. It accepts and displays a 1080i picture in a widescreen format. This means the scan lines are compressed into the 16x9 region on my screen. Unfortunately, this widescreen compression happens automatically (with no user override option) with ANY signal present above 480i/p. This means my HD channels are displayed fine and with the correct aspect ration, however, my SD channels are also compressed vertically. This forces me to use the S-video connection for SD and the component for HD and 2 different inputs on my TV.

If the 622 output the SD channels in their native resolution, I wouldn't have to use a separate connection/input on my TV. Every time I switch between an HD channel and an SD channel or vice versa, I must also select a different input on my TV. Quite annoying.

I know, I know, buy a new TV!!! :sure:


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

what you are asking for is not native pass thru. you are asking for the box to switch to 480i when viewing a SD channel. 

I don't think that's a bad idea at all. But it's not native pass-thru.

Maybe my mode button on the remote would cycle from 480i->480p->720p->1080i.


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> what you are asking for is not native pass thru. you are asking for the box to switch to 480i when viewing a SD channel.


Ok, you're right. I want my HD channels in HD resolution (1080i/720p), and my SD channels in SD resolution (480i/p) WITHOUT having to make/press any selections/buttons etc. That would make me very happy!


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> Let's just talk about maybe IFC which is horrid looking on Dish. This is a signal that comes from the content provider (IFC) as a regular 480i signal, 640x480 pixels @ 30 Hz. Dish Network resamples that obviously at something more like 320x240 pixels @ 8 frames per second in order to cut the bandwidth requirement by a huge amount. So "native pass thru" would do what? Pass this incompatible format to the TV? My TV would not display it. Instead the 622 needs to reconstruct this into an ATSC-compliant signal, in this case the closest match would be 480i. Then your TV can display it.


That's not at all how MPEG compression works. First, and unrelated to the compression, NTSC resolution (480i) is 640 x 240 at 30 hz. The picture is interlaced and scans every other line in alternation, so the signal ends up 640 x 480 at 60 hz. Only half of the picture is drawn with each scan. NTSC displays 60 frames per second, but half of each frame is the same as the preceding frame.

MPEG of any variety is a lossy compression scheme, saving bandwidth by discarding data. To compensate for this, the receiver buffer holds the last frame, current frame and next frame, and can use adjacent frames to reconstruct the current frame. This allows the encoder to discard any pixel that doesn't change, and only transmit the pixels that change. This allows the amount of data in each frame to vary widely. An entirely new frame requires a lot of data, a static picture requires very little.

Sometimes the encoder guesses wrong and discards data that can't be reconstructed by the receiver, or perhaps the information never existed in the first place. A smart receiver can do a great job of compensating for this, like the Faroudja chip that de-interlaces DVDs and puts out an HD signal. You are seeing data that was never on the DVD, re-created by some very clever circuitry and programming. The 622 does a creditable job of de-interlacing SD programming, but the success depends on the source. "It's really hard to polish a ..."

The new MPEG-4 compression scheme uses a lot more CPU horsepower to handle the data. I haven't read up on all the tricks it uses, but in addition to better data compression I suspect it does things like use pattern recognition to just reposition pixels during a pan. When Dish rolled out the new MPEG-4 HD channels, they were actually still encoded in MPEG-2 with an MPEG-4 header. The new encoders were not ready yet. I haven't heard if Dish has started to use MPEG-4 or not, but judging from the amount of pixellation I see on HD channels, I would guess not.

If Dish only transmitted one channel, the variation in data rate would not be an advantage, but Dish multiplexes several channels onto each transponder. Half a dozen channels will fit on a single transponder, when any single channel may at times require almost half the bandwidth of that transponder. When the data rate exceeds the available bandwidth, you get pixellation.

I haven't paid much attention to the picture quality on IFC lately. I have been a little short on time for movie watching. I have never noticed that IFC had a bad picture, and I have a very large screen. Picture quality seems to depend as much on the source as anything. If IFC is broadcasting poorly mastered DVDs, there isn't much that Dish can do about it. Sometimes there is even a variation on the same DVD. I have the Babylon-5 collection. The videotape portions are mediocre quality, but when the CGI portions come on screen they really pop! Blame the source.

You can use your 622 to estimate the data rate of the programming you record. The recording time left is based on an average. Some HD programming uses an hour of HD recording time, some uses as little as 40 minutes. That doesn't mean that one picture is only 2/3 as good as the other. Different types of programming place different demands on the system.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

the overly technical description of MPEG doesn't have anything to do with the issue of native pass-thru.

and if you can't see what's wrong with IFC, you need to see an optometrist ASAP.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mr.72 said:


> the overly technical description of MPEG doesn't have anything to do with the issue of native pass-thru.


The core thought that should be taken away from this discussion is this:

Your TV is not designed to handle the signal that E* and D* are transmitting over satellite. In order to display that signal on your TV the receiver must convert it into a standard your receiver understands. That is a conversion, not pass through.

Even when something called "native pass through" is available it won't be a direct pass through from source to TV. All that MPEG stuff is in the way, like it or not.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Exactly. Thanks for making it very clear, James. I think even using the term "native pass-thru" kind of misleads people into thinking it is doing something it is not.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Hmmm let me see if I have my understanding correct. I have always called it native pass-through. 

You have content that is encoded to a particular format and passed to the 622. I am assuming that this content is encoded to 720p, 1080i, or 480i at the source and passed as a MPEG-4 or MPEG-2 stream. 

At this point, The 622 takes the stream and then depending on the resolution setting send the stream out in the user selected formate. 

In the case of Native Pass through, the 622 would take the stream and send it out in the format that it received. 

What am I missing here. To me, it is passing it natively how it was received and not doing any translation to format other than how it was received by the 622


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

The problem is, between when Dish Network receives the signal and when they finally send it out to the sat, encoded in their format, they may [likely] change the original format/resolution/frame-rate/interlacing/etc. so that it is no longer the same identical signal.

The presumption of "native pass-thru" is that there is some native format that can be passed on to the TV from the 622. That is likely rarely the case. Maybe for local broadcast OTA channels but not for much else. If the 622 were to pass on the "native" channel stream without somehow constructing or scaling it, then it would not be compatible with the TV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Part of the answer depends on what the Dish receiver actually does.

For an SD channel, for instance... does it first convert to 480i and then convert to 720p or 1080i for output if you have that selected? OR does it convert directly to 720p or 1080i from the satellite signal?

IF it converts the satellite signal directly to the output format, then I would agree "native passthrough" may not make a difference because the receiver is already doing the level of conversion necessary. Exceptions would be that a 720p "native" signal would appear better at 720p output than at 1080i and similarly 1080i would look better at 1080i than 720p... but since there technically always has to be processing done by the receiver this would still be true.

Some innards of the receivers would need to be known to actually determine how this would work in reality. Of course I would still like to have the option of "native" passthrough.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I was under the impression that getting it into a Format the TV would be something done on the head end not the receiver end, but I would not be surprised if it was something the receiver did. 

There have been discussion talking about how some programs are sent 1080i and some 720p so I assumed that this is what the Head sends to the receiver when it comes down to it. You have a MPEG-2 stream.. It has a certain resolution associated with it and I would expect that resolution to be in standard resolutions that TVs understand.. 

Hmmm then I remember the whole discussions about sending lower resolutions and ofcourse those would have to be scaled to some extent.. (Another discussion for another thread outside of the 622 forum).  

I guess in the end... The goal for the end user is to have it outputted in its intended format. If the program is intended to be 720p it goes as 720p and if it intended for 1080i it goes as 1080i and if 480i it goes as 480i. In the end what users are wanting from this feature is for the TV to do the scaling. 

This feature has been discussed a few times before... As to what type of user features something like this should have to meet various TV environments. For example... How do you address TVs that only support 1080i and 480i/p? or 720p/480i/p?


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> I guess in the end... The goal for the end user is to have it outputted in its intended format. If the program is intended to be 720p it goes as 720p and if it intended for 1080i it goes as 1080i and if 480i it goes as 480i. In the end what users are wanting from this feature is for the TV to do the scaling.


Exactly. When I say I want native pass-through I'm not complaining about any compression/decompression/encoding/transcoding/decoding.... I'm saying I want Dish to output to my TV the same resolution (480/720/1080) that it got originally. I don't care how they do it. No one wants to know how the sausage is made... :grin:

Call it what you want. But me getting the signal in its original resolution IS a good thing for me and my specific TV. If you don't like it, fine, they should make it an option, but please don't tell me its a bad thing or not worthwhile. I'm sure there are options/aspects of the 622 that each and everyone out there doesn't use. That doesn't mean its bad or useless, its just not applicable to you. I guess I just don't understand the sudden thought that having an option like this is a bad idea. It clearly would help me and my setup. If it doesn't help you, don't use it.


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Ron Barry said:


> For example... How do you address TVs that only support 1080i and 480i/p? or 720p/480i/p?


I think its pretty rare for an HD tv not to support ALL 1080i/720p/480i/p. It just scales it to whatever is necessary. That said, there probably are some out there. That's why I said it should be an optional thing. You can either select the resolution output (like now) or you can have "NATIVE RESOLUTION" which passes each channel in the RESOLUTION it was sent to Dish originally.

There, I want native resolution, not native passthrough!


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

PhantomOG said:


> But me getting the signal in its original resolution IS a good thing for me and my specific TV.


I agree. However I think "native pass-thru" is misleading terminology, and when we ask for it, we may be getting an answer like "Soon" aka "never" because what we are asking for is not really what we want.

I think what we want is more like, SD channels come out in 480i, progressive-scan HD channels come out in 720p and interlaced HD channels come out in 1080i. Maybe we need some fancy marketing word to describe this like "automatic format detection" or something like that but native pass-thru may be asking for too much.



> If you don't like it, fine, they should make it an option, but please don't tell me its a bad thing or not worthwhile. I'm sure there are options/aspects of the 622 that each and everyone out there doesn't use. That doesn't mean its bad or useless, its just not applicable to you.


apparently, if there's some feature you want that is not applicable to everyone else, it does in fact make it bad or useless, at least according to the response I am getting on this thread:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=83437

I continue to be surprised at the extent to which dbstalk users are willing to bend their expectations of the product to fit whatever is offered to them.


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> apparently, if there's some feature you want that is not applicable to everyone else, it does in fact make it bad or useless, at least according to the response I am getting on this thread:


yah, I get what you are saying. For what you want, they would have to have a button on the remotes to toggle single-dual mode. However, for other users afraid of hijacking problems, they would need to make this button "optional" in some way to prevent the threat. It could be done, just more complicated. Either the remotes have to change, or they introduce some sort of shift function to the current remote.

I have no problem with having the button as an option, so long as it is defeatable as well. Much like the misunderstanding with "native resolution" maybe the others are not seeing it as a possible *defeatable* option.

I seriously believe everyone here is smart enough not to fight a new feature so long as the previous behaviour is still repeatable for those who do not want the feature. All just misunderstandings.

I propose from now on we call it "native resolution output" instead of "native passthrough". All in???


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Mr.72 said:


> apparently, if there's some feature you want that is not applicable to everyone else, it does in fact make it bad or useless, at least according to the response I am getting on this thread:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=83437
> 
> I continue to be surprised at the extent to which dbstalk users are willing to bend their expectations of the product to fit whatever is offered to them.


Can't speak for everyone that replied, but I don't think I was saying the feature is useless or bad. Actually I said how I could see its usefullness to some. However, I personally see some usability issues it brings up and this way I dont' think it is a good idea.

My opinion (Cant speak for all that posted) is just different and personally I see it as understanding the limitations of the feature rather than bending my expectations to fit what is currently offered. 

As for native resolution support, I see this feature has having big potential PQ improvments for a number of users in the SD department and given the complaints here regarding poorer SD quality for some would be a big win.

As for the naming, I believe Native-Pass through is how it was coined with other receivers that current support a feature like this and when it has been talked about with the 811, 921, 942 and now the 622 it has be referred to by that name. Technically might not be accurate, but it has been the name used for a while (if memory serves)


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

PhantomOG said:


> Exactly. When I say I want native pass-through I'm not complaining about any compression/decompression/encoding/transcoding/decoding.... I'm saying I want Dish to output to my TV the same resolution (480/720/1080) that it got originally. I don't care how they do it. No one wants to know how the sausage is made... :grin:
> 
> Call it what you want. But me getting the signal in its original resolution IS a good thing for me and my specific TV.


Exactly! My Sony does an excellent job of making an sd picture (480) fit my widescreen with it's 'wide zoom' - nobody looks squished and I don't lose much on the top or bottom of the picture - but it doesn't let me use it's wide-mode function on 1080i signals. The 622's formatting doesn't do nearly as well (partial zoom looks smashed and zoom cuts off too much) and I don't want to switch back and forth between inputs on the tv or the settings on the 622's menu to output 480i. That's why I want the native pass-through option.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> The problem is, between when Dish Network receives the signal and when they finally send it out to the sat, encoded in their format, they may [likely] change the original format/resolution/frame-rate/interlacing/etc. so that it is no longer the same identical signal.


MPEG-2 was designed to accommodate NTSC and PAL. A native MPEG-2 signal is 480i. They tacked on extensions to the standard to encode HD.

MPEG-4 is entirely different. In the future, it would be an advantage to satellite TV providers to convert all programming to MPEG-4, since it would give them a lot more bandwidth to play with. However, it is very new, and not even fully implemented for HD, much less for SD programming. There will probably be a lot of tweaks to the standard over the next 10 years, as the old SD equipment goes obsolete. Trying to implement a native resolution output at this point would be shooting at a moving target. It's not impossible, but would probably require more software updates in the future.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

dbconsultant said:


> Exactly! My Sony does an excellent job of making an sd picture (480) fit my widescreen with it's 'wide zoom' - nobody looks squished and I don't lose much on the top or bottom of the picture - but it doesn't let me use it's wide-mode function on 1080i signals. The 622's formatting doesn't do nearly as well (partial zoom looks smashed and zoom cuts off too much) and I don't want to switch back and forth between inputs on the tv or the settings on the 622's menu to output 480i. That's why I want the native pass-through option.


I would be happy if Dish just fixed the 622 zoom so it doesn't cut off so much on the top and bottom of letterboxed SD programming.


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Larry Caldwell said:


> Trying to implement a native resolution output at this point would be shooting at a moving target.


Well, it seems to me that the 622 is well aware of which channels are HD and which are SD (based on the fact that the Format button remembers a mode for each type of channel). All I'm asking is that the resolution of the SD channels be output at 480i/p over component with the current HD outputs staying the same. It already distinguishes between the two and obviously has memory dedicated for the two. All I want it the option setting the resolution independently as well. The more I think about it the more it seems this should be pretty trivial to implement. Please DISH!!!

I don't want native pass through.... I want to be able to select the resolution of SD and HD channels independently. That sounds really doable, doesn't it? We already have independent stretch modes for each. What's the tech support email?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

"Native Pass Through" would apply to OTA signals ... received in 1080i would output as 1080i, received as 720p would output as 720p. 480i would pass through as 480i. OTA ATSC TV stations must broadcast in one (or more) of the 18 approved formats that TVs are required to be able to tune.

The difference on satellite channels is that the "via satellite" part is NOT required to follow the 18 OTA standards. There are ATSC approved compression standards for satellite. Some of those standards have been referred to as "HD Lite".

IF E* offers "native pass through" of OTA it will allow the TV scaler to take over the job of making the output look good. For satellite the receiver would have to recreate the closest to "standard" signal possible ... or one would have to get a TV that would accept the satellite formats (like 1280 and 1440 x 1080i) and display them correctly.

I wonder if, when E* introduces this feature, it will be OTA only and what sort of interface they will put in to choose what format is output. It could be a simple "native" selection instead of 1080i/720p/480i/480p on the HDTV output screen. Which means a lot of resyncing every time one changes the channel.

Also, If I'm watching HBO HD (1080i) and ESPN HD (720p) using PIP what format is output? So many questions!


----------



## Rod (Jan 9, 2003)

I am not a Direct TV subscriber but I found it interesting that their HR20 receiver supports Native Mode. I have read a considerable amount of commentary regarding exactly how the 622 converts data from the MPEG stream it receives to the signal it finally delivers and if a native mode, as I understand it, is even possible. The information below would appear to indicate that the concept of native mode is possible on a satellite receiver. I also understand that the 622 and HR20 are different and what applies to one receiver may not apply to the other. 

I have included pages 74, 83 and 85 from the HR20 users guide. You will note references to Native Mode on each of those pages. Of particular interest is the note on page 83 which states;

"In Native mode, the receiver automatically adjusts resolutions to match the resolution of the individual TV program as they are tuned".

I am sure those of you that are more technically inclined than I can provide your input on exactly what the note above actually means. It would also be interesting to hear comments from HR20 owners.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

Yeah the HR20 also has the "Format" button which allows the user to switch, on the fly, between different resolutions. That would be a step in the right direction on the 622, even if it didn't have full-on "Native" mode.

The HR20 Native mode causes a lot of problems, or at least gets blamed for a lot of problems. That's a lot of heavy lifting for the box to do just changing channels. It would have to renegotiate with the HDMI input on the TV with each channel change. I kind of favor a manual switch available on the remote so you can just switch the resolution when you know you are planning to watch a single channel for a while.

I had an HR20 here for a couple of weeks before getting the 622 and this was a handy feature, but the box was very, very unstable. When it was in standby, it would dream about being a 622.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

I too still want the possibility to select native passthrough / native resolution, although I do understand that the receiver still has to do some signal processing on satellite signals, since they aren't always at the ATSC resolutions. This was my highest priority feature (after bug fixes), as opposed to DishComm and all kinds of external device support that I couldn't care less about.


----------



## Teran (Mar 16, 2007)

Digeo handled output resolutions well with their Moxi cable receiver by including a list of output resolutions that you would select from.

480i
480p
720p
1080i

You simply mark which formats your display device supports.

I understand that Dish cheats and doesn't transmit a full resolution stream for their HD content. That is another discussion as is whether you think it is cheating to not transmit a full bandwidth stream.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

that's the way the HR20 works. and the "Format" button cycles through these.

Likewise my Oppo DVD player has a "HDMI" button that cycles through the available output resolutions from 480p thru 1080p.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

ebaltz said:


> Well for starters almost everything anyone every asked for.
> 
> •No native pass through
> •No USB external hard drive support
> ...


Sure it could be better but to be fair it is a big improvement. As others have said 5.1 is working through HDMI. Not sure why you would expect HD rSNS witha software update and the VOD/PPV items are standard items not really hurting anything why eliminate them. If it turms out that they need the memory fine eliminate them but I would not expect it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

:welcome_s


Teran said:


> I understand that Dish cheats and doesn't transmit a full resolution stream for their HD content. That is another discussion as is whether you think it is cheating to not transmit a full bandwidth stream.


Be careful not to mix the terms (resolution and bandwidth). Some form of compression is required ... E* uses formats that the ATSC allows for satellite. (The schemes D* has chosen pass even less resolution and are used on more of their channels.)


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Eagles said:


> It's basically the same, which means it's OK for the most part. The bug I refer to has to do with how you set your CC to be displayed using the various options in the CC menu, most notably the "opacity" settings. When you set the background to transparent it creates problems with the CC lettering. It becomes broken up as if it doesn't know weather to display itself in the solid, translucent or transparent mode. The "foreground opacity" setting is not working at all. Changes made in the menu have no affect on the lettering. This leads me to believe that this may be part of the problem. I've had my 622 since June 2006. It has always been like this. These options worked great on my 921. If you want I could send you a couple of video clips to show you exactly what I'm referring to. Email me and I'll reply with the clips attached.


Was there any change to the HD channels that don't have CC at all?


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

so ... I wonder if a macro programmed on a my cinema 7 would allow me to switch resolutions on the fly? I'll have to give it a try.


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> so ... I wonder if a macro programmed on a my cinema 7 would allow me to switch resolutions on the fly? I'll have to give it a try.


I imagine you could program a macro, but even a one button macro, going into the system setup menu to change the resolution is hardly what I would call "on the fly".


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

well, not as "on the fly" as a sleeker solution but if it works ... however i think it might not work unless the down-arrow button will cycle back to the top of the pop-up list. i'll have to see when i get home.


----------



## deadrody (Apr 2, 2007)

Pass through is, indeed, something any "videophile" should care about. Let me explain...

NBC broadcasts their shows in pristine 1080i - a full 1920 x 1080 interlaced picture. In an ideal world, every single pixel in that 1920 x 1080 picture would be transmitted from NBC to Dish Network to your VIP622 and then to your HDTV display device. Due to the massive bandwidth that kind of signal would require, it cannot be done.

Enter digital compression. Now I don't know if Dish Network is guilty of this, though I have never seen them accused, but their competitor, DirecTV, allegedly starts by shaving the 1920 x 1080 picture down to a more manageable 1280 x 1080 picture. Either way, Dish Network takes their picture and applies digital compression. At the moment, they are still using MPEG-2 compression, but the new VIP622 does support moving to MPEG-4. Anyhow, once the signal is sufficiently reduced through compression, it goes from there to the satellites down to your receiver, where it is DE-compressed back to it's original format - in this case 1080i, or 1920 x 1080 interlaced. I do not believe there is any hardware or software that can perform both a decompression and conversion at the same time.

So, now you have a decompressed 1920 x 1080 interlaced picture (1080i). If your receiver is set to 720p, the receiver then performs a conversion that changes the picture from interlaced 1920 x 1080 to progressive 1280 x 720. However, if your TV is a 1080i set, it will automatically convert the incoming picture to 1920 x 1080 interlaced. The goal is always to limit the # of conversions and to force the best hardware to perform those conversions. The VIP622 might be that hardware for some, but not for others, and if you have a 1080p set, it is already performing a conversion of both 720p and 1080i inputs, so the ideal situation is to have the 622 output the original format for the TV to perform a single conversion to 1080p.

The basic point is that the MPEG compression does not fundamentally alter the structure of the picture, it just uses a variety of algorithms to reduce the raw data needed to transmit that information from point a to point b. Once the receiver decompresses the stream, it is essentially back to the same raw data, though due to the compression, some pixels may be somewhat different.

So, the fact that what is flying through the air from the satellite to your receiver isn't in a standard format is a moot point.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions about the difference betwee format conversion and video compression.

*PS* - Right now I am a Comcast customer, but have decided to move to Dish Network so I can get all the multi-channel audio / HD goodness Dish offers. More HD programming at a lower cost - BONUS!!! And the industry leading HD-DVR STB with OTA HD support. FYI - the SA 8300HD set top boxes already support pass through as a standard feature.


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I have a question.

Do you have any evidence that in fact, a broadcast that originated in 1080i (1920x1080 pixels) will be converted back to its original format before being sent out of the 622 in 720p mode?

I don't know the answer and it's not a rhetorical question.

I do think that detecting and switching 1080i and 720p signals automatically would be an excellent feature for the 622. But given the track record of quality of Dish Network software, I think this might be more for them to bite off than they can chew. Either way I think many of the wanna-be videophiles on this forum might have the expectation that some of the compression artifacts are going to be fixed by native pass-thru, that it's some kind of magic cure.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

BTW: E* recently moved the LA HD LILs to MPEG4 ... the only LIL HDs remaining in MPEG2 are the NY City LILs (the other markets have been MPEG4 since their beginning).


----------



## PhantomOG (Feb 7, 2007)

Mr.72 said:


> I do think that detecting and switching 1080i and 720p signals automatically would be an excellent feature for the 622. But given the track record of quality of Dish Network software, I think this might be more for them to bite off than they can chew. Either way I think many of the wanna-be videophiles on this forum might have the expectation that some of the compression artifacts are going to be fixed by native pass-thru, that it's some kind of magic cure.


I just want the option of setting the resolution on HD channels separately from SD channels. 1080i for HD, and 480i/p for SD would satisfy me completely. Considering the 622 is aware of, and already has settings stored separately for HD and SD channels (the stretch format), I don't think this would be "more than they can chew". All this native passthrough/compression/1080i vs 720p talk just clouds the main issue for me! 

And I don't think this will fix anything other than me needing to use 2 separate connections to my TV.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 5, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> Yeah the HR20 also has the "Format" button which allows the user to switch, on the fly, between different resolutions. That would be a step in the right direction on the 622, even if it didn't have full-on "Native" mode.


The 622 remote does have a format button on the lower left corner (I think that's where it is, I don't have the remote with me), when the remote is in SAT mode. That switches you to the different resolutions.

Edit: My bad...that's the zoom formats...sorry.


----------

