# DIRECTV now broadcasting 1080p HD



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

1080p HD has been available for a few months from DIRECTV. However, all of the titles available from DIRECTV were distributed either via On Demand (Internet download) or DIRECTV Cinema which pushed the movies over the satellite, but not in real time.

Today, DIRECTV started broadcasting 1080p HD. You can now watch a movie from DIRECTV in 1080p HD without downloading on Pay-per-view channel 125.


----------



## Kheldar (Sep 5, 2004)

Unfortunately they picked a really stupid movie to start this with (Ghosts of Girlfriends Past), but it's cool that they started.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Kheldar said:


> Unfortunately they picked a really stupid movie to start this with (Ghosts of Girlfriends Past), but it's cool that they started.


:lol::lol::lol::lol:

You might not like that movie but it is one of the highest renting films right now....


----------



## ThePrisoner (Jul 11, 2009)

LarryFlowers said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> You might not like that movie but it is one of the highest renting films right now....


LMAO :lol:

Why not something like Wolverine?


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Cool, so not only is HD bandwidth being wasted on PPV, but 1080p PPV, at that.

National HD lags, but woot, we've got 1080p, that many can't, and even more won't, use.

Pfffffffft.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I think it should be clarified that if your tv does not do 1080p/24 it will run as 1080i.
I did just verify this since mine only does 1080p 50/60.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

This is seriously cool. It's a view of things to come.

I wonder when broadcasters will provide 1080p to the service providers. That's when we'll start to see 1080p in the nationals. 

Now That Will Be Really Cool. 

Mike


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

DIRECTV was broadcasting 1080/24 two months ago.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2183910#post2183910

Perhaps it was for testing only. :whatdidid


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

hancox said:


> Cool, so not only is HD bandwidth being wasted on PPV, but 1080p PPV, at that.
> 
> National HD lags, but woot, we've got 1080p, that many can't, and even more won't, use.
> 
> Pfffffffft.


Broadcasting in 1080p24 takes no more bandwidth (potentially less) than 1080i60. So you may not like it, but it is doing no more harm that HD PPV was before.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

gregjones said:


> Broadcasting in 1080p24 takes no more bandwidth (potentially less) than 1080i60. So you may not like it, but it is doing no more harm that HD PPV was before.


Yes, but it's a duplicate of channel 148. So, minimally, it's one more HD channel slot.

Why couldn't this have waited for a better test, and spin down the 1080i copy?


----------



## GreatPig (Sep 19, 2006)

I don't get it. Isn't 1080p/24 going to give you pretty much the same thing as 1080i at 60Hz?


----------



## tvjay (Sep 26, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Broadcasting in 1080p24 takes no more bandwidth (potentially less) than 1080i60. So you may not like it, but it is doing no more harm that HD PPV was before.


Where do you get your facts? Uncompressed 1080p is like 3 gbps, 1080i is only 1.5 gbps. I can't imagine that compressed they would be the same.

Bit rate comparison


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

This is more a braggart PR move than anything else. People will swear the see the difference, and the emperor's new clothes.


----------



## kirker187 (Jul 8, 2008)

hancox said:


> Cool, so not only is HD bandwidth being wasted on PPV, but 1080p PPV, at that.
> 
> National HD lags, but woot, we've got 1080p, that many can't, and even more won't, use.
> 
> Pfffffffft.


I agree. Our HD locals go out every time Directv runs NFL Sunday Ticket. The whole 1080p resolution pisses me off. It is not even a standard. The standards are 720p and 1080i. Some genius said, "why can't we have progressive 1080?" Totally unnecessary.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

tvjay said:


> Where do you get your facts? Uncompressed 1080p is like 3 gbps, 1080i is only 1.5 gbps. I can't imagine that compressed they would be the same.
> 
> Bit rate comparison


Where do you get YOUR facts? There's no such thing as "uncompressed 1080p" in the consumer world, for one thing; and for another, you can't just say "1080p" or "1080i" in a comparison without specifying the framerate. gregjones' post was correct. :nono:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tvjay said:


> Where do you get your facts? Uncompressed 1080p is like 3 gbps, 1080i is only 1.5 gbps. I can't imagine that compressed they would be the same.
> 
> Bit rate comparison


"My facts" come from monitoring my network while watching recordings using DirecTV2PC.
1080p/24 bit-rates have peaked @ 16 Mb/s, and have been as low as 2 Mb/s.
1080i runs ~ 9 Mb/s
All 1080 MPEG-4 HD "could be" send in 1080p/24 since the receivers will output 1080i for those without 1080p/24 supported TVs.
"Uncompressed" is meaningless to the SAT bandwidth.
If there is "a key" here, it's that PPV can be encoded several times before being put on the SAT, where doing it "on the fly" can't.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually if you've ever gone to Best Buy and seen the movies that look like you're looking out a window, that's because of the 24Hz signal. Film is shot at 24 frames per second and when shown at 60 frames per second, it gets that familiar blur that comes from the fact that 24 does not go into 60 evenly. 

The 1080p part may or may not give you perceivable extra quality depending on the size of your TV but showing a 24fps movie at 24hz (or some even multiple like 120Hz) should give you a much better experience.


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

This is cool. I might probably won't buy one, but it is cool. Mainly because I don't see a big advantage over OnDemand. Perhaps they could broadcast THE 101 in 1080P/24. Since they control all aspects of that network.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Aztec Pilot said:


> This is cool. I might probably won't buy one, but it is cool. * Mainly because I don't see a big advantage over OnDemand*. Perhaps they could broadcast THE 101 in 1080P/24. Since they control all aspects of that network.


It can be watched on receivers that aren't DVRs.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Watching the preview now this is like seeing history in the making .Oh well screen just went blank except for ordering info.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

I am so confused. How is this different that the PPV 1080p movies?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> I am so confused. How is this different that the PPV 1080p movies?


IIUC, previously the 1080p movies were only the on demand/showcase/movies now/directv cinema and were already on your hard drive or downloaded via On Demand.

Now you can get PPV broadcast in 1080p instead of it having to already be on your DVR or getting it via On Demand.

Mike


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> I am so confused. How is this different that the PPV 1080p movies?


This is being streamed from DIRECTV into you STB and viewed immediately. On Demand & DIRECTV Cinema are pushed (or pulled) to your receiver before playback can be started.

It actually shows the possibility of driving live TV @ 1080p/24


----------



## paragon (Nov 15, 2007)

kirker187 said:


> The whole 1080p resolution pisses me off. It is not even a standard. The standards are 720p and 1080i. Some genius said, "why can't we have progressive 1080?" Totally unnecessary.


That is patently false. All of the different varieties of 1080p are in the ATSC standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> Previously the 1080p movies were only the on demand/showcase/movies now/directv cinema and were already on your hard drive.
> 
> Now you can get PPV broadcast in 1080p instead of it having to already be on your DVR or getting it via On Demand.
> 
> Mike


Oh I see. Where? Channel 125? (I see that it was mentioned in the first post...just clarifying)

Thank you.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

Weren't almost all of the 1080p DIRECTV Cinema movies sent to your receiver? So what would be the point of watching the 1080p live if all of them were already residing on the hard drive?

J


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Does this mean they will no longer need to download content via the available unused tuner and store on the hard drive of a HDDVR? (In the future of course.)


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I thought I read on here somewhere that the NFLN broadcasts at 1080p, but all the providers send it out 1080i because they don't have the bandwidth to do 1080p? If thats the case, then maybe one day we'll get actual 1080p content on other channels. Cool.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Justin23 said:


> Weren't almost all of the 1080p DIRECTV Cinema movies sent to your receiver? So what would be the point of watching the 1080p live if all of them were already residing on the hard drive?
> 
> J


This is really the first step in broadcast 1080p. I really wouldn't be any different then one residing on the hard drive. You won't be able to tell the difference.

Mike


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I thought I read on here somewhere that the NFLN broadcasts at 1080p, but all the providers send it out 1080i because they don't have the bandwidth to do 1080p? If thats the case, then maybe one day we'll get actual 1080p content on other channels. Cool.


Pretty sure NFLN is in 1080i...I don't think any broadcaster is sending out 1080p yet...


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> This is really the first step in broadcast 1080p. I really wouldn't be any different then one residing on the hard drive. You won't be able to tell the difference.
> 
> Mike


Would the broadcasters and the people that film the shows need to change their equipment? Or would it be a matter of taking the HD filmed content (in 720p or 1080i) and converting it to 1080p?

J


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Justin23 said:


> Pretty sure NFLN is in 1080i...I don't think any broadcaster is sending out 1080p yet...


The NFL Network actually does broadcast in 1080p.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Justin23 said:


> Would the broadcasters and the people that film the shows need to change their equipment? Or would it be a matter of taking the HD filmed content (in 720p or 1080i) and converting it to 1080p?
> 
> J


I don't know how that would have to work but that's a really good question.

Someone know the answer to this question?

Mike


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> The NFL Network actually does broadcast in 1080p.
> 
> Mike


Really? Where did you find this info? I've searched and everything I see has the NFLN in 1080i....

J


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> Would the broadcasters and the people that film the shows need to change their equipment? Or would it be a matter of taking the HD filmed content (in 720p or 1080i) and converting it to 1080p?
> 
> J





MicroBeta said:


> I don't know how that would have to work but that's a really good question.
> 
> Someone know the answer to this question?
> 
> Mike


720p will stay 720p.
1080 "film" would easily become 1080p/24.
"Broadcasters" most likely will not [ever] change their output as the MPEG-2 is the standard and MPEG-4 is only SAT and someday maybe cable.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Justin23 said:


> Really? Where did you find this info? I've searched and everything I see has the NFLN in 1080i....
> 
> J


Here is some info. I'll get more later.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1910195&postcount=27
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1909090&postcount=15
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1902330&postcount=11

Mike


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

David MacLeod said:


> I think it should be clarified that if your tv does not do 1080p/24 it will run as 1080i.
> I did just verify this since mine only does 1080p 50/60.


Sounds like time for a new HDTV with 1080p/24 functionality. It will help the economy, too.


----------



## Huskie_2009 (Jan 12, 2009)

I would take 60 fps over 24 fps any day. Why would I not want those extra frames per second? Motion will be more fluent on screen at the higher frame rates.
Some people are even affected while watching a film in a theater. They can actually see the flickering of the still frames.

This page explains a lot: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1015


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

Any video you watch on a flatscreen is 1080p (or 720 p or 480p). Only the old picture tube sets display "i" (interlace.) The set converts 1080i to 1080p.

In the case of a live telecast, especially fast-moving sports, 1080i is not quite as smooth as 720p because the odd/even lines are out of time sequence when they're converted to progressive scan in the set.

BUT: In the case of a 24 frames/sec. movie in 1080i, a set that properly deinterlaces the picture, will restore the video to the original 1080p. That is because, unlike a live telecast, the odd-even fields that make up a frame, were originally scanned from a non-moving frame of film. Therefore, there is no blurring from objects moving between the time that the odd field is scanned, and the even field is scanned. 

So, assuming your set does what it should, any time you watch a 24 frame motion picture on a 1080p flatscreen, you are watching true 1080p. Whether the set can display multiples of 24 frames/sec. or 60 frames a second is a separate issue, and a far more subtle effect.

In my opinion, satellite companies have played fast and loose with their "1080p" catch phrases, thinking that the consumers have a vague idea that they are getting something better. Such terms as "1080p resolution" are misleading, because 1080p refers to a scanning system, not resolution.
In fact, satellite providers compress and down-rez their video from the original.

Blu Ray DVD's are also 1080p. But even if your 1080p set can't display 1080p at multiples of 24 frames, (most show 60 frames/sec) you still get a much better picture on Blu Ray. There are at least two reasons for this. The video is not stripped down to a lower resolution, and the bit rate of the Blu Ray is much higher than satellite, providing a higher quality image. It is not better because it is 1080p. 

If the so-called "1080p" movies on satellite do look better, then they might be sending them at a higher bit rate, and/or not downsizing the resolution, NOT because they are being sent in 1080p/24.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

ThePrisoner said:


> LMAO :lol:
> 
> Why not something like Wolverine?


Friday on Channel 125


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

This is a step in the right direction and I applaud DirecTV for making this happen. Way to move forward DirecTV, always trying to make it better! Thanks!


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I just wonder if Hdnet and MGM will catch on.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Very cool! I can see if 1080p/24 becomes the standard (down the road) for all HD channels (non-PPV), I will need much bigger hard drives! D


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HarveyLA said:


> Any video you watch on a flatscreen is 1080p (or 720 p or 480p). Only the old picture tube sets display "i" (interlace.) The set converts 1080i to 1080p.
> 
> In the case of a live telecast, especially fast-moving sports, 1080i is not quite as smooth as 720p because the odd/even lines are out of time sequence when they're converted to progressive scan in the set.
> 
> ...


 Now most of what you've posted I agree with, "but" resolution is resolution & scan rate is scan rate.
DirecTV doesn't "down res" a 1080 or 720 programs. 
If a blu-ray disk is 1080p/24 and it outputs 1080p/60, it's not adding anything "new", but merely padding the output.
"As for compression", yes the less it is compressed the more detail there is.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> Very cool! I can see if 1080p/24 becomes the standard (down the road) for all HD channels (non-PPV), I will need much bigger hard drives! D


Only because you'll be wanting to save more recordings and not because the 1080p will take up more space.


----------



## tvjay (Sep 26, 2007)

LameLefty said:


> Where do you get YOUR facts? There's no such thing as "uncompressed 1080p" in the consumer world, for one thing; and for another, you can't just say "1080p" or "1080i" in a comparison without specifying the framerate. gregjones' post was correct. :nono:


Sorry, I operate in the professional world most days, i.e. at a TV station. Yes, I agree frame rates and field rates are very important but 99 percent of the time when people speak of 1080i they mean 1080i60 (which is 60 fields or 30 frames per second) which is used by most networks and 1080p which is 1080p24 (24 frames a second) used by Blue Ray and DirecTV now.

My point, and yes I know that I failed to make it, was that 1080p24 on satellite may take up less space per gregjones' post but would therefore suffer in quality because nativity they are VERY different formats in terms of bitrate usage. The key here is bitrate, regardless of format, 1080p24 on my Blue Ray movie I am watching right now is exceeding 30 mbps sometimes. If DirecTV is only giving 16 mbps then we are missing almost half of what Blue Ray offers.

My flaw, and I am admitting it, was that I assumed that 1080p24 from DirecTV was the SAME as Blue Ray and therefore would use more bandwidth than a 1080i60 signal at the broadcast standard of 19.39 mbps.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Again...this is found on channel 125?


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Too bad I have a Sony TV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Too bad I have a Sony TV.


 me too :lol:
"but" even with a 1080i output the 1080p shows I've watched look good.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Actually if you've ever gone to Best Buy and seen the movies that look like you're looking out a window, that's because of the 24Hz signal. Film is shot at 24 frames per second and when shown at 60 frames per second, it gets that familiar blur that comes from the fact that 24 does not go into 60 evenly.
> 
> The 1080p part may or may not give you perceivable extra quality depending on the size of your TV but showing a 24fps movie at 24hz (or some even multiple like 120Hz) should give you a much better experience.


Actually Stuart, that blur you see is due the film being shot at 24fps, called motion-blur, which has nothing to due with the conversion to 60Hz. Now what you will see on a 60Hz display (with films) is judder, which during slow pans and tilts the motion isn't smooth, it seems to jump every few seconds. You don't see this on displays that can properly handle 1080p/24.

For films, the only way to get rid of motion-blur is to shoot at a higher frame-rate, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> me too :lol:
> "but" even with a 1080i output the 1080p shows I've watched look good.


Me three, my sony tv displays 1080p fine,verified by info it says 1080p/24.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

So, the new TVs having 120hz or 240hz frame rates can handle both 1080p/24 and 1080/60, right? I even saw a TV purporting 600hz frame rate.


----------



## Justin23 (Jan 11, 2008)

MicroBeta said:


> Here is some info. I'll get more later.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1910195&postcount=27
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1909090&postcount=15
> ...


Other than stuff posted here...was there ever something confirming this? I believe you...I'm just curious on why I haven't heard of this before...

J


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> Other than stuff posted here...was there ever something confirming this? I believe you...I'm just curious on why I haven't heard of this before...
> J


This can be only "verified" by those working in the back room of stations as Tomcat does.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Actually if you've ever gone to Best Buy and seen the movies that look like you're looking out a window, that's because of the 24Hz signal. Film is shot at 24 frames per second and when shown at 60 frames per second, it gets that familiar blur that comes from the fact that 24 does not go into 60 evenly.
> 
> The 1080p part may or may not give you perceivable extra quality depending on the size of your TV but showing a 24fps movie at 24hz (or some even multiple like 120Hz) should give you a much better experience.


So, for their 1080p, do they run the same frame twice like in actual movie theaters or do they strictly do 24 fps? This is one of hte things I hate bout theaters.


----------



## Huskie_2009 (Jan 12, 2009)

Lee L said:


> So, for their 1080p, do they run the same frame twice like in actual movie theaters or do they strictly do 24 fps? This is one of hte things I hate bout theaters.


1080 is a resolution. The p stands for progressive, i for interlaced. The number after it is the framerate.

If you are asking what they do to convert 24fps to 60 fps, 


> To get around this, a process called "3:2 pulldown" was developed, in which the original 24 fps film frames are multiplied into an alternating pattern of 3s and 2s. The first frame is displayed 3 times, the second frame twice, the third frame 3 times, and so forth in series. This repetitive sequence effectively stretches 4 film frames into 10 video frames, allowing the original 24 fps content to play at the faster 60 Hz rate without appearing sped up. For a more detailed technical explanation of the process with visual illustrations, I recommend reading through articles at Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity and Wikipedia.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

tvjay said:


> Where do you get your facts? Uncompressed 1080p is like 3 gbps, 1080i is only 1.5 gbps. I can't imagine that compressed they would be the same.
> 
> Bit rate comparison


Nobody said it was uncompressed.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

Small tute here: 1080p/60 versus 1080p/24 what's the difference?

The numbers 24 and 60 refer to frame rate. Moving video is composed of a certain number of frames transmitted every second that combine in the viewer's mind to create the illusion of movement. The nominal rate for film is 24 frames per second, while the rate for video is 30 frames per second. In standard 1080p video, which is technically 1080p/60, each frame is repeated twice. Every 1080p HDTV sold today can accept and display 1080p/60 sources via its HDMI inputs.

However not every 1080p HDTV properly displays 1080p/24 sources. A lot of Blu-ray players as well as the PlayStation 3 have a setting that allows the player transmit 1080p/24 video. Blu-ray Discs with movies that originate on film are encoded at 1080p/24 to preserve the proper cadence of film. If your player is set to output 1080p/24 directly, and your TV can properly display it, you're seeing the image as close as possible to how it looks when displayed on a cinema screen from a film projector.

Generally, for an HDTV to properly display 1080p/24 it needs to have a refresh rate of some multiple of 24. The standard refresh rate for all HDTVs is 60Hz, due to the roots in video and not film, which is not a multiple of 24. There's no benefit to sending these displays 1080p/24 instead of 1080p/60, however increasing numbers of LCD TVs have refresh rates of 120Hz or 240Hz, which are multiples of 24 and come closer to preserving the cadence of film.

Kevin


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Huskie_2009 said:


> I would take 60 fps over 24 fps any day. Why would I not want those extra frames per second? Motion will be more fluent on screen at the higher frame rates.
> Some people are even affected while watching a film in a theater. They can actually see the flickering of the still frames.
> 
> This page explains a lot: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1015


If the source material is 24fps (most theatrical releases), having 60fps will not provide additional pertinent information. 1080i60 produces 30 full frames per second (interlaced into 60 cycles, updating half a frame at a time). There is no particular advantage to getting 30 frames of information when only 24 existed originally.

In terms of sports programming or other live (digitally sourced) video that had 30 or 60 frames of information at the source, 1080p24 would be of no particular advantage. You have to consider the source framerate.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> Again...this is found on channel 125?


Yes .. Just tune to 125 .. what do you see?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

kfcrosby said:


> Small tute here: 1080p/60 versus 1080p/24 what's the difference?
> 
> The numbers 24 and 60 refer to frame rate. Moving video is composed of a certain number of frames transmitted every second that combine in the viewer's mind to create the illusion of movement. The nominal rate for film is 24 frames per second, while the rate for video is 30 frames per second. In standard 1080p video, which is technically 1080p/60, each frame is repeated twice. Every 1080p HDTV sold today can accept and display 1080p/60 sources via its HDMI inputs.
> 
> ...


My tv is a 60 hz when it receives a 1080p/24 signal it switches to 48 hz .


----------



## Huskie_2009 (Jan 12, 2009)

gregjones said:


> If the source material is 24fps (most theatrical releases), having 60fps will not provide additional pertinent information. 1080i60 produces 30 full frames per second (interlaced into 60 cycles, updating half a frame at a time). There is no particular advantage to getting 30 frames of information when only 24 existed originally.
> 
> In terms of sports programming or other live (digitally sourced) video that had 30 or 60 frames of information at the source, 1080p24 would be of no particular advantage. You have to consider the source framerate.


Thanks. I knew that but failed to add which video sources I wanted at 60 fps. You summed it up nicely.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> 1080p HD has been available for a few months from DIRECTV. However, all of the titles available from DIRECTV were distributed either via On Demand (Internet download) or DIRECTV Cinema which pushed the movies over the satellite, but not in real time.
> 
> Today, DIRECTV started broadcasting 1080p HD. You can now watch a movie from DIRECTV in 1080p HD without downloading on Pay-per-view channel 125.


how do I enable 1080P on an H20-100?


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

gregjones said:


> In terms of sports programming or other live (digitally sourced) video that had 30 or 60 frames of information at the source, 1080p24 would be of no particular advantage. You have to consider the source framerate.


Like ESPN and their 1080p/60 studio !

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/0...tudio?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_engadgethd


----------



## jfalkingham (Dec 6, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> This is seriously cool. It's a view of things to come.
> 
> I wonder when broadcasters will provide 1080p to the service providers. That's when we'll start to see 1080p in the nationals.
> 
> ...


It would be nice if they could offer all of their primetime programming in HD. Is there really a need to do programming exclusively in SD during the network primetime slots? I hate watching the SD programming on the HD feed. So you either live with it or switch to the SD feed.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

gfrang said:


> My tv is a 60 hz when it receives a 1080p/24 signal it switches to 48 hz .


Some plasma's were capable to do this.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> how do I enable 1080P on an H20-100?


Not possible


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GreatPig said:


> I don't get it. Isn't 1080p/24 going to give you pretty much the same thing as 1080i at 60Hz?


Yes. Some people were pointing that out when the 1080p VOD service was first rolled out. It's little more than marketing hype that plays on the notion that a lot of people think that 1080p/24 is providing something that 1080i/60 can't provide.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I disagree. For 24fps source material, 1080p24 will give you better quality.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'd like to call those 'experts' who put us down during recent descussions about 1080p online channels

*- TIME TO EAT THE CROW !!!*


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Actually if you've ever gone to Best Buy and seen the movies that look like you're looking out a window, that's because of the 24Hz signal. Film is shot at 24 frames per second and when shown at 60 frames per second, it gets that familiar blur that comes from the fact that 24 does not go into 60 evenly.


That high quality that you occasionally see at the TV store has almost nothing to do with it being shown at the correct frame rate of 24fps, and is mostly because it is coming from a very high quality and high bitrate source such as a very well mastered Blu-ray disk. If you watched the same disk on a TV that only did 1080p60 it would look just as good.... maybe better, since some people actually perceive less judder effect when viewing a 24fps source after the frame rate is divided unevenly to match the 60Hz refresh rate of the TV.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Not possible


does the hardware support 1080p24?

why broadcast in 1080p when people who have h20's won't see a picture improvement.

channel 125 only says hd not hd 1080p


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Yes. Some people were pointing that out when the 1080p VOD service was first rolled out. It's little more than marketing hype that plays on the notion that a lot of people think that 1080p/24 is providing something that 1080i/60 can't provide.


I kinda thought that is was. :scratchin

I thought that movie source material is 24fps so 1080p24 requires no juggling of frames and preserves the original movie. I could be wrong about that but it seems to make sense...of course one could argue against 24fps as it could cause motion blur/shudder. :shrug:

Mike


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I disagree. For 24fps source material, 1080p24 will give you better quality.


You can disagree all you want, but there is not any additional spatial or temporal resolution in a 1080p/24 signal that a 1080i/60 signal can't provide given the same bitrate for both.

Deinterlaced 1080i/60 can provide 30 full 1920 x 1080 progressive frames per second... obviously more than a 24fps source requires.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Do you have a TV that does 1080p/24? I'll trade you for it, since you seem to see no value in it.

In seriousness, the quality is not a measure of the framerate, it's a measure of the absence of pulldown.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> I kinda thought that is was. :scratchin
> 
> I thought that movie source material is 24fps so 1080p24 requires no juggling of frames and preserves the original movie. I could be wrong about that but it seems to make sense...of course one could argue against 24fps as it could cause motion blur/shudder. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


The full 24 progressive frames are also in a 1080i/60 encoding of the same 24fps source, so nothing additional is "preserved" by broadcasting it in 1080p/24. If you have a TV that is capable of displaying frames at a rate that is a multiple of 24fps, then a 1080i encoding of a 24fps film can be deinterlaced into the same identical 24 progressive frames that are broadcast in a 1080p/24 transmission, and displayed on the TV screen at the correct frame rate of 24fps.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think you just made my point... that displaying 1080p24 on a TV that supports 1080p24 is the best way to express source material that is 24fps.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Justin23 said:


> Would the broadcasters and the people that film the shows need to change their equipment? Or would it be a matter of taking the HD filmed content (in 720p or 1080i) and converting it to 1080p?
> 
> J





MicroBeta said:


> I don't know how that would have to work but that's a really good question.
> 
> Someone know the answer to this question?
> 
> Mike


Having not visited TV broadcast facility since God knows when, I can't be completely sure, but the way I understand today is that for most TV programming in a modern station these days both HD and SD programs are recorded (or "ingested"), stored, archived, processed and played-out on computer controlled file servers (or a "file based workflow"). And as such converting between formats such as [email protected] and [email protected] when in file form this way for later play-out is readily accomplished.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Very cool! I can see if 1080p/24 becomes the standard (down the road) for all HD channels (non-PPV), I will need much bigger hard drives! D


Why would you need a bigger hard drive to store something that was transmitted at 24 full frames per second as opposed to 60 half frames per second? (24/1) < (60/2)


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> does the hardware support 1080p24?
> 
> why broadcast in 1080p when people who have h20's won't see a picture improvement.
> 
> channel 125 only says hd not hd 1080p


Well most people these days are getting either an HR2x, H21 or H23 receiver for doing HD. Those support 1080p. H20s are not capable from my understanding.

I'm not sure if 1080p/24 will be on channel 125 100% of the time. They may intersperse other non-1080p programming as well.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

P Smith said:


> I'd like to call those 'experts' who put us down during recent descussions about 1080p online channels
> 
> *- TIME TO EAT THE CROW !!!*


Again, those discussions were around whether or not general networks would go 1080p24 or 1080p60. PPV is still a very different beast than a channel switching. I can see PPV using 1080p24 or even a premium channel that was movies only. It is not as likely to happen for channels with mixed content (non-movies).


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Huskie_2009 said:


> 1080 is a resolution. The p stands for progressive, i for interlaced. The number after it is the framerate.
> 
> If you are asking what they do to convert 24fps to 60 fps,


Nah, I knew all about that stuff years ago, hence looking back it was kind of a stupid question for me to ask, I just was not connecting the two.

Obviously they are running 24 fps. I guess it must look better than watching in a theater, where they definitely do repeat each frame twice. My only problem is that I have only one TV that will accept 1080p/24 material, the rest are too old and will only accept 1080p/60.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Well most people these days are getting either an HR2x, H21 or H23 receiver for doing HD. Those support 1080p. H20s are not capable from my understanding.
> 
> I'm not sure if 1080p/24 will be on channel 125 100% of the time. They may intersperse other non-1080p programming as well.


why does a h21 or h23 support 1080p but not the h20


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> You can disagree all you want, but there is not any additional spatial or temporal resolution in a 1080p/24 signal that a 1080i/60 signal can't provide given the same bitrate for both.
> 
> Deinterlaced 1080i/60 can provide 30 full 1920 x 1080 progressive frames per second... obviously more than a 24fps source requires.


The advantage of 1080p24 is in the TV not making guesses at how to interpret the signal. We have seen from any number of examples that most manufacturers did a lousy job of building a good way to get a good picture from a 1080i60 signal that retained much of the quality of a 1080p24 source. This is akin to making sure the signal isn't stretched (Turner channels). It comes in pristine. If you want to screw it up and stretch it, it's up to you as the consumer.

1080p24 gives the same choices to the customer. They can watch it on a 1080p24 capable set or have it converted to a 1080i60 signal for output. This leaves the customer with more choices (we should all like this) with no degradation in quality or increased bandwidth.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Do you have a TV that does 1080p/24? I'll trade you for it, since you seem to see no value in it.
> 
> In seriousness, the quality is not a measure of the framerate, it's a measure of the absence of pulldown.


No, if the pulldown is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a 1080i broadcast of the same source. Again... 30 progressive frames per second can be encoded into a 1080i transmission and then deinterlaced into the original 30 progressive frames per second, so a 24fps source "fits" into the 30 progressive frames per second that a 1080i signal can deliver.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> why does a h21 or h23 support 1080p but not the h20


Why does the HR23 record twice as much HD as an HR20 and not need BBCs? Newer models, newer features. Upgrade.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> Why does the HR23 record twice as much HD as an HR20 and not need BBCs? Newer models, newer features. Upgrade.


the goodnews is that directv won't want the h20 back. why would directv want a receiver back that can't do 1080p


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Justin23 said:


> Other than stuff posted here...was there ever something confirming this? I believe you...I'm just curious on why I haven't heard of this before...





veryoldschool said:


> This can be only "verified" by those working in the back room of stations as Tomcat does.


I'm a very active participant in the HDTV Programming forum over at AVS, where a lot of "back room" people participate. The only mention of it that I can find over there is posted by TomCat. I'm not saying he's wrong, but for something this unique I need to hear it from more than one random poster on a forum before I will believe it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> why does a h21 or h23 support 1080p but not the h20


The H20 is, simply, an older model. If you want the advanced features, I suggest you get a newer receivers.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> No, if the pulldown is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a 1080i broadcast of the same source. Again... 30 progressive frames per second can be encoded into a 1080i transmission and then deinterlaced into the original 30 progressive frames per second, so a 24fps source "fits" into the 30 progressive frames per second that a 1080i signal can deliver.


Of course that's all true but it requires manipulation of the original source data. In general terms it's better to leave it alone.

True, done properly, it shouldn't be a problem but don't manipulate it all and you're almost guaranteed not to have a problem. 

Mike


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

gregjones said:


> Broadcasting in 1080p24 takes no more bandwidth (potentially less) than 1080i60. So you may not like it, but it is doing no more harm that HD PPV was before.


But it gives a better picture while providing fewer pixels. Just more Directv magic.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> No, if the pulldown is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a 1080i broadcast of the same source. ...


Just for the sake of accuracy, it should be properly phrased that if the "inverse (or "reverse") pulldown" is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a [email protected] broadcast of the same source.


----------



## Huskie_2009 (Jan 12, 2009)

HoTat2 said:


> Just for the sake of accuracy, it should be properly phrased that if the "inverse (or "reverse") pulldown" is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a [email protected] broadcast of the same source.


Just for the sake of accuracy, it should be properly phrased that if the "inverse (or "reverse") pulldown" is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a [email protected] broadcast of the same *1080p/24* source.

There. Now it's accurate.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> Of course that's all true but it requires manipulation of the original source data. In general terms it's better to leave it alone.
> 
> True, done properly, it shouldn't be a problem but don't manipulate it all and you're almost guaranteed not to have a problem.
> 
> Mike


But unless you have a 48Hz, 72 Hz, 96Hz, 120Hz or 240Hz screen refresh rate TV set you have to do some manipulation to the signal by adding in 3:2 pulldown to display it on a conventional 60Hz TV display which make up the majority of HDTVs today.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I think you just made my point... that displaying 1080p24 on a TV that supports 1080p24 is the best way to express source material that is 24fps.


And that can be done on regardless if the 24fps source is delivered via a 1080p/24 signal or a 1080i/60 signal. The only thing that matters is if the TV set can display the 24 progressive frames per second that are contained in either type of encoding at the correct 24fps frame rate... broadcasting it in 1080p/24 really provides nothing that 1080i/60 isn't already capable of. 24 frames per second fit into the 30 progressive frames per second that 1080i can deliver, and a 120Hz refresh TV set knows how to discard the duplicate frames that are in a 30fps (1080i) transmission and display the original 24 frames per second, each for 1/24th of a second.... by repeated each frame 5 times to display it for 5/120ths of a second per source frame.

The point is that despite the fact that 24fps is the correct way to display 24fps source material, you don't need a 1080p/24 transmission to do that, which brings me back to my original point that DirecTV's (or DISH's or cable company's) 1080p offerings are little more than marketing hype to exploit the beliefs of some people that there is something extra in the 1080p broadcast that wouldn't be in a 1080i broadcast of the same source material.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Huskie_2009 said:


> Just for the sake of accuracy, it should be properly phrased that if the "inverse (or "reverse") pulldown" is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a [email protected] broadcast of the same *1080p/24* source.
> 
> There. Now it's accurate.


Well...

Seems semantically the same actually, as the meaning of "1080P/24" is obviously implied in the words "the same source" as stated previously.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> the goodnews is that directv won't want the h20 back. why would directv want a receiver back that can't do 1080p


Maybe to refurb it and use it to replace another one that goes bad!


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Just for the sake of accuracy, it should be properly phrased that if the "inverse (or "reverse") pulldown" is done correctly, the TV can reassemble the same 24 progressive frames that are in a 1080p/24 signal from a [email protected] broadcast of the same source.


I'll defer to you on the exact terminology. I can never keep it straight what's what when encoding and decoding and whether it's 3-2 or 2-3 pulldown or inverse pulldown or inverse telecine. What I do know is that the 24 progressive frames of a film source can be encoded and extracted fully intact from either a 1080p/24 signal or a 1080i signal.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Maybe to refurb it and use it to replace another one that goes bad!


h20's don't do 1080p why would directv want to have a h20 back.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Maybe to refurb it and use it to replace another one that goes bad!


I suspect that when a H20 goes bad that they will replace it with a more advanced receiver that lets them market all their "advanced" PPV options to the customer.


----------



## Huskie_2009 (Jan 12, 2009)

HoTat2 said:


> Well...
> 
> Seems semantically the same actually, as the meaning of "1080P/24" is obviously implied in the words "the same source" as stated previously.


I don't think all that are reading that would understand that the source was the same format as the output format. They would be in for a surprise if they thought taking a source at 1080p/60 (broadcast) and doing an inverse pulldown on it will result in an equal picture.

I just wanted to make it clearer.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I'll defer to you on the exact terminology. I can never keep it straight what's what when encoding and decoding and whether it's 3-2 or 2-3 pulldown or inverse pulldown or inverse telecine. What I do know is that the 24 progressive frames of a film source can be encoded and extracted fully intact from either a 1080p/24 signal or a 1080i signal.


I'm not arguing with that. However, with MPEG4 HD, it's possible to extract either 1080i60 or 1080p24 from the same data stream. That's basically what's happening with this channel now. It seems like you're thinking it's an either/or situation, when in fact what you're seeing is a data stream that will behave optimally whether the output device is 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i60 or 1080p24. Why is that a bad thing?


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm not arguing with that. However, with MPEG4 HD, it's possible to extract either 1080i60 or 1080p24 from the same data stream. That's basically what's happening with this channel now. It seems like you're thinking it's an either/or situation, when in fact what you're seeing is a data stream that will behave optimally whether the output device is 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i60 or 1080p24. Why is that a bad thing?


If this is the case, is it possible or even probable that this is not a channel that takes up extra bandwidth at all and is really just remapped to 125?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm not privy to that level of detail in the broadcast center, but it's possible. 

It's also possible that all future HDPPVs will decode to 1080p24 when possible, and take up no more bandwidth than they do now.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

cartrivision said:


> Why would you need a bigger hard drive to store something that was transmitted at 24 full frames per second as opposed to 60 half frames per second? (24/1) < (60/2)


We did post tech info about 1080p programs with sizes ant bitrates last months whaen Dish and DTV start using FVOD for that. Find them and you'll see the size for 1080p24 is bigger then for 1080i30.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Whats really cool is watching a bluray on a 1080p24 tv that has a "motionflow" option like the samsungs, sonys etc.
It makes it so smooth & real just like looking out a window....doesnt that have that fake film stuttering look to it.

I know 80% dont like it....but i do.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> We did post tech info about 1080p programs with sizes ant bitrates last months whaen Dish and DTV start using FVOD for that. Find them and you'll see the size for 1080p24 is bigger then for 1080i30.


For DirecTV I can read the streaming bitrates, with DirecTV2PC.
Yes, they have higher peak bitrates but I'm not sure on the average they do.
[side note] Ken Burns National Parks series came of my local PBS [720p] and took up twice the drive space as any other MPEG-4. Streaming this had a fairly constant 20-22 Mb/s in MPEG-4!
Of the six recordings only the one recorded during "prime time" had glitches in it, the other 5 were recorded at 2 & 3 AM and had zero issues.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I just like knowing that i can watch a movie in it's original frame rate than using a process than only can come close.
Also i think it gives the movie a nice film look.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm not arguing with that. However, with MPEG4 HD, it's possible to extract either 1080i60 or 1080p24 from the same data stream. That's basically what's happening with this channel now. It seems like you're thinking it's an either/or situation, when in fact what you're seeing is a data stream that will behave optimally whether the output device is 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i60 or 1080p24. Why is that a bad thing?


It's not a bad thing. My only point was that there was no additional information in the 1080p/24 signal that isn't already there in the 1080i signal.... which is why as you point out, you can derive either from the same MPEG4 data stream, but additionally if it's not done inside the DirecTV box, you can also derive the same 1080p/24 signal if given a 1080i signal coming out of the DirtecTV box.

Neither way is necessarily better, but if a TV can't accept a 1080p/24 signal, it doesn't matter if the DirecTV box correctly produces the 24fps signal because it will never be displayable on that particular TV, whereas that same TV might be able to accept it as a 1080i signal and then correctly assemble 24 progressive frames each second from the interlaced input signal, and a 120Hz or higher TV set could be able to accept either type of signal (1080p/24 or 1080i) and display them both in the same way as progressive frames at a 24 fps frame rate.

The bottom line is, people shouldn't be too concerned if their TVs cannot accept DirecTV's 1080p/24 programming, because by taking it as 1080i from the DirecTV box, they can see the same thing as someone with a 60Hz TV which can accept a 1080p/24 input signal.... which is why I say that the primary thing that 1080p programming provides is an opportunity for marketing hype.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

I guess directv is no longer leasing h20's.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> The bottom line is, people shouldn't be too concerned if their TVs cannot accept DirecTV's 1080p/24 programming, because by taking it as 1080i from the DirecTV box, they can see the same thing as someone with a 60Hz TV which can accept a 1080p/24 input signal.... which is why I say that the primary thing that 1080p programming provides is an opportunity for marketing hype.


I tend to agree "but" at the same time hope the compression is less/better with the 1080p/24, since there doesn't need to be as much "filler" as with 1080i, so the SAT feed could carry more "good bits" [and let the receiver/TV do the padding for 1080i output].


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Although I'm still have a question here. For years since it's inception I thought DirecTV was de-interlacing and removing the 3:2 pulldown from SD cinema material and sending to their MPEG-2 receivers at [email protected] Hz to efficiently save on transponder bandwidth and have the receiver then re-interlace and add the 3:2 pulldown back in. 

Why hasn't DirecTV been broadcasting in [email protected] Hz all along for all their 1080i HD movies for the same reasons? Seems like a pretty big wasted potential for either bandwidth savings or at roughly the same bandwidth requirements better PQ through a lower necessary amount of compression by combining MPEG-4/AVC and DVB-S2, with 1080P/24 Hz.

Or might they have been actually broadcasting in this format for years but only now allowing the actual [email protected] Hz satellite input signal all the way though to the receiver output?


----------



## Miller (Jul 22, 2005)

David MacLeod said:


> I think it should be clarified that if your tv does not do 1080p/24 it will run as 1080i.
> I did just verify this since mine only does 1080p 50/60.


That is good to know. I tried watching 1080P shows on my big tv before and the screen would only to go not supported. I wondered what would happen when i see some things only in 1080P. I assumed I would only be able to watch the SD versions.

I have a 3 or 4 year old 56" samsung dlp. I don't supose there is a firmware update that will make this work with /24 is there?


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Although I'm still have a question here. For years since it's inception I thought DirecTV was de-interlacing and removing the 3:2 pulldown from SD cinema material and sending to their MPEG-2 receivers at [email protected] Hz to efficiently save on transponder bandwidth and have the receiver then re-interlace and add the 3:2 pulldown back in.
> 
> Why hasn't DirecTV been broadcasting in [email protected] Hz all along for all their 1080i HD movies for the same reasons? Seems like a pretty big wasted potential for either bandwidth savings or at roughly the same bandwidth requirements better PQ through a lower necessary amount of compression by combining MPEG-4/AVC and DVB-S2, with 1080P/24 Hz.
> 
> Or might they have been actually broadcasting in this format for years but only now allowing the actual [email protected] Hz satellite input signal all the way though to the receiver output?


There isn't that much bandwidth savings. You are looking at the output format. You need to look at the input formats and the effect compression will add. For 24Hz film-based material, think of film in terms of frame pairs. Compression will reduce them to two frames. Simple enough. For transmission at 1080i/60, The frames are interlaced into two fields per frame. The two frames are split, interlaced, and fields are repeated in a 3:2 manner to get to 60 fields per second. So compression will only store 2 frames or 4 fields, regardless whether the data is 1080p/24 or 1080il/60. It is just how many times a field or frame is repeated. There willl be flags in the data stream which tells the decoder (DirecTV box) to repeat fields or frames the proper number of times to either reach 24, 30 or 60i.

The only technological difference is whether the compression algorithms work better with interlaced or progressive input. There might be just a tad fewer flags on progressive output. It might very well be source material dependent. I think of the two formats over satellite as using the same bandwidth for film based material only.

Now, for Direct on Demand, the 1080p/24 movies had multipass compression, whereas the typical satellite channel was one pass due to the real time nature of most channels. I haven't seen whether or not the DoD 1080p/24 material were of a larger total size, but certainly they can be more efficient in use of bits because of the multipass compression used.

If DirecTV is using multipass compression on channel 125, then it will give better picture than a normal one-pass compressed 1080i equivalent regardless of what mode you watch it in on your TV. So the anti-1080p/24 camp should be happy on that point.

Cartridgevision is correct about 1080p/24, but it requires a TV that can do perfect deinterlacing and then properly detect film source material to be able to do the 3:2 pulldown. Not all TVs can do that perfectly. If you have a 1080p/24 capable set, there is less chance for the TV to mess up.

Finally, the data rate over HDMI will be 25 percent higher for 1080i/60 versus 1080p/24 due to more repeated data between the DirecTV box and the TV. If you have a long or marginal HDMI cable, there may be errors received by the TV due to the higher data rate of 1080i/60.

So, there are some very small technological advantages to 1080p/24. It is mostly an advertising gimmick. Or keeping up with the Joneses/Charlies/Whatevers.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Well most people these days are getting either an HR2x, H21 or H23 receiver for doing HD. Those support 1080p. H20s are not capable from my understanding.
> 
> I'm not sure if 1080p/24 will be on channel 125 100% of the time. They may intersperse other non-1080p programming as well.





dorfd1 said:


> why does a h21 or h23 support 1080p but not the h20


I did find out that H20s may support this in the future, so there is hope.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> I did find out that H20s may support this in the future, so there is hope.


awesome I was afraid that people with h20's would be left out.


----------



## ohpuckhead (Dec 15, 2007)

I'm jumping with joy for all of you guys with those nice big 1080p tv's and the ability to dissect the technical details as you do!:hurah:

But since I have a 1080i capable TV and very little of the technical know-how, I'm just happy I got to watch the Columbus Blue Jackets home game with the Calgary SNet feed, even though only in cloudy 480i SD, because for another season the Center Ice blackout is lifted for the Jackets' territory. (When they have no home telecast.) :eek2:

Happy TV Viewing all!!!!


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

V'ger;2247723 said:


> There isn't that much bandwidth savings. You are looking at the output format. You need to look at the input formats and the effect compression will add. For 24Hz film-based material, think of film in terms of frame pairs. Compression will reduce them to two frames. Simple enough. For transmission at 1080i/60, The frames are interlaced into two fields per frame. The two frames are split, interlaced, and fields are repeated in a 3:2 manner to get to 60 fields per second. So compression will only store 2 frames or 4 fields, regardless whether the data is 1080p/24 or 1080il/60. It is just how many times a field or frame is repeated. There willl be flags in the data stream which tells the decoder (DirecTV box) to repeat fields or frames the proper number of times to either reach 24, 30 or 60i.
> 
> The only technological difference is whether the compression algorithms work better with interlaced or progressive input. There might be just a tad fewer flags on progressive output. It might very well be source material dependent. I think of the two formats over satellite as using the same bandwidth for film based material only. ...


OK;

So let's see if I have this correct;

For [email protected] Hz you would have two TV interlaced fields per film frame weaved together to construct a 1080P progressive frame for each film frame with the third TV field eliminated as redundant. And then flags are set in the data stream to instruct the receiver to generate 24 frames per second?

And for case of [email protected], you again have two interlaced fields per film frame, though not weaved together to form a progressive frame with flags set to instruct the receiver to repeat one additional field on alternate film frames to generate 60 fields per second?

So either way it's still amounts to two TV fields per film frame in the satellite transport stream?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Why would you need a bigger hard drive [?]


VOS covered it succinctly earlier in the thread: I'll be recording more.


----------



## albriedis (Sep 29, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes .. Just tune to 125 .. what do you see?


Press SELECT on Buy Now to watch Ghosts of Girlfriends Past for $5.99, or select Record It to record for later.

Damn, must have missed the free preview of 1080p live.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

hancox said:


> Cool, so not only is HD bandwidth being wasted on PPV, but 1080p PPV, at that.
> 
> National HD lags, but woot, we've got 1080p, that many can't, and even more won't, use.
> 
> Pfffffffft.


I agree, more PPV, WHOOPEEEEE!!!!!!!

PS: You are about to be attacked by the D* Homers.


----------



## paulh (Mar 17, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes .. Just tune to 125 .. what do you see?


"Channel not Available"
HR23-700

darn 034C with forced "Hide HD Duplicates" living in a MPEG4 market when you do not add HD access that does not seem worthwhile on the old 30" tube that's "only" 1080i anyhow.. I think I used to be have the option to buy a HD PPV, and did catch a few HD previews...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Drew2k said:


> VOS covered it succinctly earlier in the thread: I'll be recording more.


Seems no one want read previous posts with the info ...

I saw it rolling as 15 Mbps CBR and size of same movie in 1080p24 was bigger then its version in 1080i.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

Cool.
More opportunities to see full utilization of the capability of my 1080p/24 HDTVs (only if it's notification that the TV is displaying 1080p/24? :lol: ) has to be good. 
Had to update my favorites list as 125 wasn't on it.
Still, I won't be watching tonight (if ever) due to ye old PPV 24-hour rule.
I rarely have enough time to get in a full movie in one sitting.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I'll defer to you on the exact terminology. I can never keep it straight what's what when encoding and decoding and whether it's 3-2 or 2-3 pulldown or inverse pulldown or inverse telecine. What I do know is that the 24 progressive frames of a film source can be encoded and extracted fully intact from either a 1080p/24 signal or a 1080i signal.


Yes, but you will not get the same image on screen if you convert something from 24p to 60i.. period. No exceptions. It is not as good as the original. You are adding things that are where not there when the "picture" was filmed, so it distorts the original images. This is why 1080P24 is better for anything that is natively shot digitally in 1080p/24 ( I believe NFL network) and anything that is shot on film, or frankly, anything sent to Directv in 1080p24 too.. The less times you convert something the better...

The reverse is also true though.. If its shot digitally @60i, then its better shown that way then having it shown at 1080p24....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Yes. Some people were pointing that out when the 1080p VOD service was first rolled out. It's little more than marketing hype that plays on the notion that a lot of people think that 1080p/24 is providing something that 1080i/60 can't provide.


Adding extra fields out of order to a picture absolutely will degrade an original signal. There is a difference, period. Now as to how many people can see the difference (considering refresh rates)... Well, if your tv is really poor, no you won't, if your tv is very high end, yes you will, everyone else (99% of the world) it will depend on if they are picky, or if someone takes the time to point it out.. once its pointed out, they will notice it all the time.... but till its pointed out, ignorance is bliss.... 

But to suggest their is no difference when your source material was shot at 24 fps, is inaccurate. If these machines that DIrectv had in our houses had very hi end scalers and interlacer/deinterlacers, then you might not know the difference, but they are not designed to be hi end specialty devices of that kind.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

P Smith said:


> I'd like to call those 'experts' who put us down during recent descussions about 1080p online channels
> 
> *- TIME TO EAT THE CROW !!!*


Wasn't me.. I've been expecting all hd ppv and a whole lot more channels to go 1080p.. and I'm guessing we will see many of them do this by the end of the year...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> You can disagree all you want, but there is not any additional spatial or temporal resolution in a 1080p/24 signal that a 1080i/60 signal can't provide given the same bitrate for both.
> 
> Deinterlaced 1080i/60 can provide 30 full 1920 x 1080 progressive frames per second... obviously more than a 24fps source requires.


Actually., if it was shot in that format, it would look worse if it was shown in 1080p24...

I really think thats the biggest issue here... Certain things will look better in 1080p, certain things in 1080i.. it really depends on the source.. and movies are for the large part, all p24, and should be shown in such format....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I tend to agree "but" at the same time hope the compression is less/better with the 1080p/24, since there doesn't need to be as much "filler" as with 1080i, so the SAT feed could carry more "good bits" [and let the receiver/TV do the padding for 1080i output].


I am also hoping that the slight savings in bandwidth might be used for a higehr bit rate as well... That would really make the picture far superior to non 24p stuff...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

albriedis said:


> Press SELECT on Buy Now to watch Ghosts of Girlfriends Past for $5.99, or select Record It to record for later.
> 
> Damn, must have missed the free preview of 1080p live.


There was no free preview. But the first five minutes of the movie are available for free, just like every other PPV movie.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

A little detail on 125:http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2248039#post2248039​
And channel 125 is on a regular 5 HD channel transponder (D11/TP5/1050).


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> Whats really cool is watching a bluray on a 1080p24 tv that has a "motionflow" option like the samsungs, sonys etc.
> It makes it so smooth & real just like looking out a window....doesnt that have that fake film stuttering look to it.
> 
> I know 80% dont like it....but i do.


I think that on both my Sony and my Samsung you must turn off the motion compensation function in order to get proper 1080p/24 playback. You might want to check into just how your TV works to make sure that you're watching what you think you are.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Wasn't me.. I've been expecting all hd ppv and a whole lot more channels to go 1080p.. and I'm guessing we will see many of them do this by the end of the year...


and where do you see all these 1080p channels coming from? There are currently zero (0) channels that broadcast in 1080p and have not seen where have announced the intention of moving to that platform.

What we do not need is "convert-o-vision", the first cousin to "stretch-o-vision", IMO.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

MIKE0616 said:


> and where do you see all these 1080p channels coming from? There are currently zero (0) channels that broadcast in 1080p and have not seen where have announced the intention of moving to that platform.
> 
> What we do not need is "convert-o-vision", the first cousin to "stretch-o-vision", IMO.


1080p/24 will only work properly on movies that were shot on film at 24fps or some early tv shows like Cheers that were filmed nothing else.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> ...The point is that despite the fact that 24fps is the correct way to display 24fps source material, you don't need a 1080p/24 transmission to do that...


No, the point is that most TVs do not handle the pulldown well at all. Would you like the list of dozens of models that do a horrible job displaying 24 fps source material through a 1080i60 signal? Yes, in a perfect world it would not matter, but manufacturers are not at all perfect.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> It's not a bad thing. My only point was that there was no additional information in the 1080p/24 signal that isn't already there in the 1080i signal.... which is why as you point out, you can derive either from the same MPEG4 data stream, but additionally if it's not done inside the DirecTV box, you can also derive the same 1080p/24 signal if given a 1080i signal coming out of the DirtecTV box.
> 
> Neither way is necessarily better, but if a TV can't accept a 1080p/24 signal, it doesn't matter if the DirecTV box correctly produces the 24fps signal because it will never be displayable on that particular TV, whereas that same TV might be able to accept it as a 1080i signal and then correctly assemble 24 progressive frames each second from the interlaced input signal, and a 120Hz or higher TV set could be able to accept either type of signal (1080p/24 or 1080i) and display them both in the same way as progressive frames at a 24 fps frame rate.
> 
> The bottom line is, people shouldn't be too concerned if their TVs cannot accept DirecTV's 1080p/24 programming, because by taking it as 1080i from the DirecTV box, they can see the same thing as someone with a 60Hz TV which can accept a 1080p/24 input signal.... which is why I say that the primary thing that 1080p programming provides is an opportunity for marketing hype.


You are missing the point. Of TVs that can do 1080p24 and 1080i60, there are many where the pulldown results in a significantly reduced picture quality. This is not due to the signal but due to the pulldown processing in the TV. Therefore, if your TV does both, you are better off with a 1080p24 signal. If your TV does 1080i60 only, then you are left with a picture no worse than you had before.

I am not advocating people go out and buy a new TV, but that they make the best use of the TV they have. On the majority of TVs that do both 1080p24 and 1080i60, a better picture quality will be achieved with 1080p24. If you have a very nice TV that performs pulldown well, then you will see no difference whatsoever. No harm, no foul.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

dettxw said:


> I think that on both my Sony and my Samsung you must turn off the motion compensation function in order to get proper 1080p/24 playback. You might want to check into just how your TV works to make sure that you're watching what you think you are.


I think you're right. I notice we own the same Samsung (650 & 630 are the same, but different screen finishes) & I thought I read on AVS that AMP should be off during 1080p/24 content.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Seems no one want read previous posts with the info ...
> 
> I saw it rolling as 15 Mbps CBR and size of same movie in 1080p24 was bigger then its version in 1080i.


But that was specific to the download movies, correct? They may or may not be equivalent to the non-download PPV movies.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

dcowboy7 said:


> Whats really cool is watching a bluray on a 1080p24 tv that has a "motionflow" option like the samsungs, sonys etc.
> It makes it so smooth & real just like looking out a window....doesnt that have that fake film stuttering look to it.
> 
> I know 80% dont like it....but i do.





dettxw said:


> I think that on both my Sony and my Samsung you must turn off the motion compensation function in order to get proper 1080p/24 playback. You might want to check into just how your TV works to make sure that you're watching what you think you are.


No....if motionflow is off them film has that fake film look....dont like that.
If motionflow is on then film has that real videotape looking out the window look....i like that.


----------



## tacua (Apr 22, 2008)

This is the message I get from my sony xbr2-2006- and my ird got frozen on channel 125, so i had to disconnect it from ac since it won't support 1080p 24
How many tv sets are out there like mine and how do we fix this with old lcds?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

tacua said:


> This is the message I get from my sony xbr2-2006- and my ird got frozen on channel 125, so i had to disconnect it from ac since it won't support 1080p 24
> How many tv sets are out there like mine and how do we fix this with old lcds?


At least for the Sony, I'm afraid you are out of luck. There are lots of threads on this issue and Sony's deceptive practices (depending on one's point of view that is) at the time of your set's manufacture.

See here for a recent one for instance:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=163953&highlight=1080P/24+Hz

Though as indicated in this thread and the one linked, it's really debatable as to whether you are really missing anything by not having the capability.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

gregjones said:


> *But that was specific to the download movies, correct? * They may or may not be equivalent to the non-download PPV movies.


Correct.

Can't help with measuring bandwidth of the 1080p24 movies on ch125, yet.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

125 is using the same slot (D11/TP5/1050) and bandwidth that channel 9215 has been using for 1080p since 2/26/2009. And it's on one of the 5 HD transponders (TP5), not one of the 4 HD transponders. 

Details in the other thread.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

I agree with those who are saying "1080p/24" is nothing more than advertising hype. If your set can show multiples of 24 frames, it will do so for 1080i film based sources as well. And if it can't... it can't.

But most owners of 1080p sets don't realize they are watching true 1080p (on 1080i films, not 1080i live telecasts) if their set properly converts the picture (yes, i understand there's some debate over this- but I suspect all but the low budget smaller screen sets do accomplish this now). I also think the multiple of 24 frame display (as opposed to the 3-2 pulldown 60hz display) amounts to a minor difference-more marketing hype to sell sets.

As I stated earlier, IF 1080p/24 transmissions appear to look better, there are probably other quality factors involved such as higher bit rate/less compression, and possibly no downsizing from 1920x1080 (although somebody in this thread said that DirecTV no longer does this).

Here's an interesting point:
MPEG2, and I believe I read somewhere else, MPEG4, 
converts film-based 1080i to 1080p/24 for the most efficient encoding, then converts it back into 1080i in the receiver. In case you want to wade through the details, there they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

For material that originated from a progressive scanned 24 frame/s source (such as film), MPEG-2 allows the video to be coded as 1080p24, irrespective of the final output format; these progressively-coded frames are tagged with metadata (literally, fields of the PICTURE header) instructing a decoder how to perform a 3:2 pulldown to interlace them. While the formal output of the MPEG-2 decoding process from such stations is 1080i60, the actual content is coded as 1080p24 and can be viewed as such, using a process known as inverse telecine, since no information is lost even when the broadcaster (as opposed to the receiver) performs the 3:2 pulldown.[8]


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> No....if motionflow is off them film has that fake film look....dont like that.
> If motionflow is on then film has that real videotape looking out the window look....i like that.


Nope, Motionflow has to be turned off. The "look" that you like isn't the way it looks in the theater. Don't worry about it though, your Samsung (and my Samsung A750) doesn't do 24p sources correctly anyway.

Instead of doing 5-5, it's performing 3-2, then doubling to 120Hz. With our displays, we will see no difference between a true 1080p/24 source or converted to 1080i.

It's cool that you like Motionflow, but it can do some funky things to sources sometimes.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

taz291819 said:


> Nope, Motionflow has to be turned off. The "look" that you like isn't the way it looks in the theater. Don't worry about it though, your Samsung (and my Samsung A750) doesn't do 24p sources correctly anyway.


Reference please for the Samsung issue? First I've heard of it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

taz291819 said:


> Nope, Motionflow has to be turned off. The "look" that you like isn't the way it looks in the theater. *Don't worry about it though, your Samsung (and my Samsung A750) doesn't do 24p sources correctly anyway.
> 
> Instead of doing 5-5, it's performing 3-2, then doubling to 120Hz. With our displays, we will see no difference between a true 1080p/24 source or converted to 1080i.
> 
> It's cool that you like Motionflow, but it can do some funky things to sources sometimes.*


What?? 

Do you know if this applies to all their 120 Hz models?

I had my heart all set on a Samsung LN32B650 for the bedroom around income tax return time early next year.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

But are you saying it will not do true 5:5 pulldown, but 3:2 to 60 frames per second then multiplied by 2 to reach 120 fps?

As dettxw says, references please?


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

taz291819 said:


> Nope, Motionflow has to be turned off. The "look" that you like isn't the way it looks in the theater. Don't worry about it though, your Samsung (and my Samsung A750) doesn't do 24p sources correctly anyway.
> 
> Instead of doing 5-5, it's performing 3-2, then doubling to 120Hz. With our displays, we will see no difference between a true 1080p/24 source or converted to 1080i.
> 
> It's cool that you like Motionflow, but it can do some funky things to sources sometimes.


But i dont like the theatre look....it looks like film that fake look.

With MF on blurays look like videotape "looking out a window" making it look real......thats what i like.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

Channel 125 for pay? Forget it. I do not want to risk ordering it only to find out my TV will not show it in its true form (1080p). Besides, when I tried the download ones in the past when testing, I came to realization that my TV will not do 1080p/24, only 1080p/60. Not a happy camper here. :-(


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Channel 125 for pay? Forget it. I do not want to risk ordering it only to find out my TV will not show it in its true form (1080p). Besides, when I tried the download ones in the past when testing, I came to realization that my TV will not do 1080p/24, only 1080p/60. Not a happy camper here. :-(


If your set will not do 1080p/24, then the PPV will not work either. You can always view the first 5 minutes of the PPV for free, this will let you know if it works or not.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

Do you think they could be testing out 1080p for HBO and Cinemax HD channels when D12 goes live? It will be interesting to see if they how much additional bandwidth it would use for multipass 1080p vs single pass on 1080i/720p.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

While its nice to see a "full time" 1080p broadcast now....I just view this as an incrimental step for advancing new services. 

It's not revolutionary, just evolutionary. 

DirecTV seems to regularly look for ways to advance new things, and this is yet another individual item along that pathway.


----------



## digitalfreak (Nov 30, 2006)

If I want to watch a 1080p / 24 movie, I'll do it on my Blu-ray setup. For those of you who enjoy getting ripped off by D* PPV, more power to you.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

digitalfreak said:


> If I want to watch a 1080p / 24 movie, I'll do it on my Blu-ray setup. For those of you who enjoy getting ripped off by D* PPV, more power to you.


Besides lower video bitrate, the best DirecTv can do, audio-wise is dolby digital, which is fine for those with three inch woofers in their 19 inch 4:3 TVs, but Blu-Ray supports several lossless audio formats that blow DD away.

Blu-Ray needs to start pushing this more to seperate themselves from downloads, cable, or satellite.


----------



## digitalfreak (Nov 30, 2006)

Is D* even broadcasting what would be considered true 1080p (1920x1080) or is it still doing that crappy 1440x1080 hack?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

V'ger;2248579 said:


> Blu-Ray supports several lossless audio formats that blow DD away.


Even on a very good sound system, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between DD and lossless. So "blow DD away" is quite an exaggeration.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

digitalfreak said:


> Is D* even broadcasting what would be considered true 1080p (1920x1080) or is it still doing that crappy 1440x1080 hack?


Dish is the one that does 1440x1080, DirecTV brodcasts their 1080i and 1080p MPEG4 channels at 1920x1080.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I usually don't do ppv but the way i see it is nobody is twisting my arm. It gives me more options to see a movie before it hits the Blu-Ray market and if i got to see a movie i got to see it now.

Last year i watched a wopping one ppv movie so i don't think i will be addicted.


----------



## hbkbiggestfan (May 25, 2007)

So now the question is when will networks begin broadcasting in 1080p? (If NFL Network already does as MicroBeta has suggested why won't D* broadcast it in 1080p?)

And more importantly, how long will it take D* to introduce any channels that begin to broadcast in 1080p?

I heard a few months back about ESPN making the switch to 1080p but I don't remember if there was a timeframe for that. Anyone know?


----------



## ActiveHDdave (Sep 15, 2007)

Won't work for me . I have an 108oi TV. The last of the tubes!


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hbkbiggestfan said:


> I heard a few months back about ESPN making the switch to 1080p but I don't remember if there was a timeframe for that. Anyone know?


ESPN's studios in LA are 100% 1080p60 internally, but they haven't made any announcements about actually sending out a 1080p60 signal. I don't think there are even any STBs on the market today capable of handling a 1080p60 signal to begin with.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The company:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=115434
the receiver:
http://www.dbstalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11912&d=1199986689


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I think it may be fallacy to assume that 1080i is 60 fields per second. While 1080i/60 is a valid DBS format, OTA is limited to 1080i (or p)/30* and I suspect that's what DIRECTV is typically getting from the programmers.

VOS's bitrate results support this idea.

* ATSC A/53 standard (Part 4 page 9)


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> I think it may be fallacy to assume that 1080i is 60 fields per second. While 1080i/60 is a valid DBS format, OTA is limited to 1080i (or p)/30* and I suspect that's what DIRECTV is typically getting from the programmers.
> 
> VOS's bitrate results support this idea.
> 
> * ATSC A/53 standard (Part 4 page 9)


Incorrect. OTA is 1080i60.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Even on a very good sound system, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between DD and lossless. So "blow DD away" is quite an exaggeration.


...and any well designed double-blind study would support your position. Thanks for bringing a bit of reality to the discussion. So much marketing hype, so little empirical evidence.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Dish is the one that does 1440x1080, DirecTV brodcasts their 1080i and 1080p MPEG4 channels at 1920x1080.


... and from everything I've been told, I do not see this changing.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hbkbiggestfan said:


> So now the question is when will networks begin broadcasting in 1080p? (If NFL Network already does as MicroBeta has suggested why won't D* broadcast it in 1080p?)
> 
> And more importantly, how long will it take D* to introduce any channels that begin to broadcast in 1080p?
> 
> I heard a few months back about ESPN making the switch to 1080p but I don't remember if there was a timeframe for that. Anyone know?


It's unknown if/when any of this would happen, but I can't imagine that DIRECTV would even remotely consider making an encoder change on the NFLST channels mid-season. Perhaps next year, but I haven't been told anything either way.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

I would like to see them do this on a full time channel like HBO HD, instead of a PPV channel. But I guess there is a method behind their decision to do it on a PPV channel.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> I think it may be fallacy to assume that 1080i is 60 fields per second. While 1080i/60 is a valid DBS format, OTA is limited to 1080i (or p)/30* and I suspect that's what DIRECTV is typically getting from the programmers.
> 
> VOS's bitrate results support this idea.
> 
> * ATSC A/53 standard (Part 4 page 9)


No, 1080i is 60 fields/30 fps. Or more exactly, 59.94 fields/ 29.97 fps.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

loudo said:


> I would like to see them do this on a full time channel like HBO HD, instead of a PPV channel. But I guess there is a method behind their decision to do it on a PPV channel.


The problem with doing 1080p/24 with something like HBO is because not everything that's shown on that network is shot on film. If it's shot on video (and not at 24fps), it's not going to look right.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

taz291819 said:


> No, 1080i is 60 fields/30 fps. Or more exactly, 59.94 fields/ 29.97 fps.


"And my bit-rates" were off the disk, before it was converted into any output [720p/1080i/1080p] as this was done in the PC.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> The company:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=115434
> the receiver:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11912&d=1199986689


The only tuner that box has is OTA. I realize it's an STB, so technically it counts, but I was referring to cable and satellite STBs.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

loudo said:


> I would like to see them do this on a full time channel like HBO HD, instead of a PPV channel. But I guess there is a method behind their decision to do it on a PPV channel.


No, it's fairly simple. DirecTV gets source material for broadcasting the PPV and VOD PPV content. These are movies to which DirecTV has source-quality material.

That is not going to be the case for HBO. First, HBO would have to provide source level material at 1080p24. Second, HBO would have to basically segregate their movie content from non-movie content. This would be more realistic in the VOD arena where the files could be provided at the best format for that particular piece of content.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> Dish is the one that does 1440x1080, DirecTV brodcasts their 1080i and 1080p MPEG4 channels at 1920x1080.


For MPEG-4 yes, but does anyone know if the six (apparently 2 per transponder) remaining legacy MPEG-2 channels on DIRECTV-5 still do "HD-lite" this way by down-rezzing to 1440x1080i?

Just a minor point for the sake of accuracy...


----------



## Gocanes (Jul 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Even on a very good sound system, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between DD and lossless. So "blow DD away" is quite an exaggeration.


Thanks for mentioning this. I can guarantee you that even on the highest end system you can make, if you had a setup that could seemlessly switch between completely uncompressed audio and Dolby Digital 99.99999% of people would not be able to tell when a switch is made except during some very complicated musical sequences.

If it's the same mix and the same levels very few humans have good enough hearing to tell the difference.

I bet that if most of the middle aged audiophiles that claim to be able to hear the difference in these things (and the 24 karat gold plated connectors) got their hearing checked they can't even hear above 12 kHz or so anymore.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I completely agree with this. I know my hearing is nowhere near what it was when I was a teenager.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> For MPEG-4 yes, but does anyone know if the six (apparently 2 per transponder) remaining legacy MPEG-2 channels on DIRECTV-5 still do "HD-lite" this way by down-rezzing to 1440x1080i?


They were down-rezzed to 1280x1080. I have no idea if they still are, but I would imagine that they are. No reason to increase the bandwidth usage of these channels when they'll be going away soon.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> They were down-rezzed to 1280x1080. I have no idea if they still are, but I would imagine that they are. No reason to increase the bandwidth usage of these channels when they'll be going away soon.


HD Theater wasn't down-rezzed, but the other 1080s were.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> HD Theater wasn't down-rezzed, but the other 1080s were.


Are you sure about that? It's been a long time, but I'm 99% sure that it was.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Are you sure about that? It's been a long time, but I'm 99% sure that it was.


"Back in the day" someone posted pics of what they actually were and Discovery was the only one @ 1080x1920.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> For MPEG-4 yes, but does anyone know if the six (apparently 2 per transponder) remaining legacy MPEG-2 channels on DIRECTV-5 still do "HD-lite" this way by down-rezzing to 1440x1080i?


DirecTV's MPEG2 HD channels are (or were) downrezzed to 1280x1080. Dish uses the 1440x1080 resolution.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "Back in the day" someone posted pics of what they actually were and Discovery was the only one @ 1080x1920.


I had to do some digging, but it turns out we were both right. HD Theater was originally down-rezzed just like all of the other channels, but right around the time D10 was lit up, DirecTV stopped the down-rezzing on HD Theater.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> ... it turns out we were both right.


OMG, did something just freeze over? :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> OMG, did something just freeze over? :lol:


I don't know, but I think a pig just flew by my window.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't know, but I think a pig just flew by my window.


!rolling


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Even on a very good sound system, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between DD and lossless. So "blow DD away" is quite an exaggeration.


That's for sure. I'd go even farther and say that I'd bet that most people who actually own very good sound systems and say that there is a big difference between "plain old" DD and the best of whatever is on Blu-ray, wouldn't be able to identify which was which in a blind comparison. Yes there are audio transports that are better than DD, but the audible differences aren't all that dramatic.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> It can be watched on receivers that aren't DVRs.


I have a H20-600. Will it work on my unit or do I need to upgrade to a new one? I don't want a DVR. In the MENU..HDTV...TV Resolutions it only shows 1080i


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

richall01 said:


> I have a H20-600. Will it work on my unit or do I need to upgrade to a new one? I don't want a DVR. In the MENU..HDTV...TV Resolutions it only shows 1080i


It does not work at this time, but it may work in the future.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Even on a very good sound system, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between DD and lossless. So "blow DD away" is quite an exaggeration.


I can definitely tell the difference!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

MIKE0616 said:


> and where do you see all these 1080p channels coming from? There are currently zero (0) channels that broadcast in 1080p and have not seen where have announced the intention of moving to that platform.
> 
> What we do not need is "convert-o-vision", the first cousin to "stretch-o-vision", IMO.


HBOP, Starz, etc... And all the PPV channels in HD...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

kevinwmsn said:


> Do you think they could be testing out 1080p for HBO and Cinemax HD channels when D12 goes live? It will be interesting to see if they how much additional bandwidth it would use for multipass 1080p vs single pass on 1080i/720p.


Maybe SIxto could check, but I do not believe that Directv is using all the bandwidth on each transponder, but so much that one whole additional channel won;t fit.. I'm guessing if they used the extra unused say 50% of one channel they could get a higher bit rate 1080p channel for one channel per transponder.. if they even did that.. Reality is that 1080p24 doesn't have to take up any more space than 1080i...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> Incorrect. OTA is 1080i60.


That's not what A/53 says. Check the citation.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

hasan said:


> ...and any well designed double-blind study would support your position. Thanks for bringing a bit of reality to the discussion. So much marketing hype, so little empirical evidence.


Say what you wan;t I have participated in blind studies of any formats of audio, and I can tell the differences, and always choose the one that was supposed to be better.. I could tell.. But I also realize that many people would never hear and feel the differences... Don't say it isn't possible, because it is, but you have to have good hearing, and know what your listening to...

I never understand why people insist everything is always the same.. Its not.. I will never forget the day someone said that MP3 's are every bit as good as cd's.. Took me 20 mins to stop laughing....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

taz291819 said:


> No, 1080i is 60 fields/30 fps. Or more exactly, 59.94 fields/ 29.97 fps.


I was trying to be careful about fields versus frames and I used the wrong term. In any event, OTA 1080(i or p) maxes out at 30fps.

Note that ATSC doesn't demand the retarded frame rates. 30fps is just as valid as 29.97fps.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Gocanes said:


> Thanks for mentioning this. I can guarantee you that even on the highest end system you can make, if you had a setup that could seemlessly switch between completely uncompressed audio and Dolby Digital 99.99999% of people would not be able to tell when a switch is made except during some very complicated musical sequences.
> 
> If it's the same mix and the same levels very few humans have good enough hearing to tell the difference.
> 
> I bet that if most of the middle aged audiophiles that claim to be able to hear the difference in these things (and the 24 karat gold plated connectors) got their hearing checked they can't even hear above 12 kHz or so anymore.


DD vs Uncompressed? If its anything with a real dynamic range.. Most people would be able to tell the difference, (yes, I think even the shadow would hear that difference) specially if they closed there eyes.. The reverberations and harmonics will resonate extremely differently, and thus change the overall sound field and sound....

In the end though,. the biggest determining factor from the begining is the quality of the actual mix and recording... I have heard low quality schemes sound far better than hi quality ones of the exact same music simply because the mix was tremendously better on the lower quality platform...

There are many variables...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Don't say it isn't possible, because it is


Nobody said it isn't possible. *I* can hear the difference, but I know I am outside of the norm.


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Dish is the one that does 1440x1080, DirecTV brodcasts their 1080i and 1080p MPEG4 channels at 1920x1080.


What about 720p since that is what most of the D* HD channels are broadcast in?


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

loudo said:


> I would like to see them do this on a full time channel like HBO HD, instead of a PPV channel. But I guess there is a method behind their decision to do it on a PPV channel.


Like making more money?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MIKE0616 said:


> What about 720p since that is what most of the D* HD channels are broadcast in?


 "Most?"
"Most" of the channels I watch are 1080, but it simply comes down to what the broadcaster is sending, since DirecTV doesn't change resolution.
[BTW even in the HD lite days 720p was always 720x1280]


----------



## MIKE0616 (Dec 13, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "Most?"
> "Most" of the channels I watch are 1080, but it simply comes down to what the broadcaster is sending, since DirecTV doesn't change resolution.
> [BTW even in the HD lite days 720p was always 720x1280]


Who has the list of what channels are in what res? I do know that before I put tape over the lights on my DVRs, most were indicating they were 720, not 1080.

So far, we have only 1 (count em, one) channel in 1080p. Out of the other 125 or so others that are in HD, how many are in what format?

Why would this be interesting? If channels chose to cheap out up to now, how many are going to invest in the hardware needed to support 1080p? (ESPN comes to mind, as well as the FOX sports channels as 720 broadcasters that would be better in 1080p, IMO.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MIKE0616 said:


> Who has the list of what channels are in what res? I do know that before I put tape over the lights on my DVRs, most were indicating they were 720, not 1080.
> 
> So far, we have only 1 (count em, one) channel in 1080p. Out of the other 125 or so others that are in HD, how many are in what format?
> 
> Why would this be interesting? If channels chose to cheap out up to now, how many are going to invest in the hardware needed to support 1080p? (ESPN comes to mind, as well as the FOX sports channels as 720 broadcasters that would be better in 1080p, IMO.)


[again] the broadcasters are the ones that set the resolution. Some use 720p, while others send 1080i. I have no clue what you mean by "cheap out".
Sports channels tend to use progressive scan & others tend to use 1080i.
The 720p MPEG-2 bandwidth is slightly less than 1080i, but 1080p MPEG-2 would take too much bandwidth. MPEG-4 reduces the bandwidth, but takes MPEG-4 decoders, so only SAT providers [and maybe cable some day] can use it.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

MIKE0616 said:


> Who has the list of what channels are in what res?


Here's the list:http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1191378#post1191378​Most of the channels have the format specified. (I usually re-look at it every few months. All help greatly appreciated.  It's a manual effort.)


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

ESPN and Fox do not need 1080p/24. I don't believe that format is ever used for live sporting events. 

The only programming that needs 1080p/24 is material shot on film, such as the vast majority of movies.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> ESPN and Fox do not need 1080p/24. I don't believe that format is ever used for live sporting events.


It is, just not on ESPN or Fox. CBS and NBC sports programming is all 1080i.


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> ESPN and Fox do not need 1080p/24. I don't believe that format is ever used for live sporting events.


ESPN built their new studio for 1080p/*60*

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/05/1080p-60-fps-production-confirmed-for-espns-new-l-a-studio/

Here the goodie that makes it all possible.

http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/1080p60/


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

gregjones said:


> It is, just not on ESPN or Fox. CBS and NBC sports programming is all 1080i.


I think the poster meant that there is no sports programming produced in 1080P at 24 frames per second. And even the 1080i used by NBC and CBS it is done at 60 fields per second equivalent to 30 frames per second.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

kfcrosby said:


> ESPN built their new studio for 1080p/*60*
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/05/1080p-60-fps-production-confirmed-for-espns-new-l-a-studio/
> 
> ...


"And" this is MPEG-4, so as I posted ^ only those with MPEG-4 receivers could watch it.

"So" while it may not use anymore bandwidth than 1080i, MPEG-2, it would use more than 1080i MPEG-4.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> I think the poster meant that there is no sports programming produced in 1080P at 24 frames per second. And even the 1080i used by NBC and CBS it is done at 60 fields per second equivalent to 30 frames per second.


I felt that was the case, but threads are often read by folks in bursts. These folks often fail to see the context in the conversation. 24fps is film-specfic.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

kfcrosby said:


> *ESPN built their new studio for 1080p/60
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/05/05/1080p-60-fps-production-confirmed-for-espns-new-l-a-studio/
> *
> ...


I don't think this encoder is what makes the [email protected] fps format used at ESPN's new L.A. studio possible. The encoder is used to create a [email protected] fps signal from any particular input format then apply MPEG-4 compression to make the transmission bandwidth required for it manageable.

Within the ESPN L.A. studio however, I imagine the signal is distributed throughout the facility as [email protected] uncompressed digital 4:2:2 component on 3 Gps HD-SDI cables.

Which sort of leaves me to question that outside of the no doubt beautiful pictures on high quality in studio monitors or maybe some large screen display(s) mounted in public viewing areas throughout the L.A. Live complex (never visited there myself  ) that can be fed a direct uncompressed signal from the nearby studio. What is to be really gained by ESPN from having such a [email protected] fps facility since prior to network distribution they have to down-rez the signal to the ABC-ESPN standard of [email protected] fps?

I mean, they may send it back to Bristol via satellite or some other for further production in [email protected] fps using an MPEG-4 encoder like the one mentioned here, but then Bristol has to down-rez to [email protected] fps for network distribution to the various CATV, DBS satellite, etc. program providers.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> I don't think this encoder is what makes the [email protected] fps format used at ESPN's new L.A. studio possible. The encoder is used to create a [email protected] fps signal from any particular input format then apply MPEG-4 compression to make the transmission bandwidth required for it manageable.
> 
> Within the ESPN L.A. studio however, I imagine the signal is distributed throughout the facility as [email protected] uncompressed digital 4:2:2 component on 3 Gps HD-SDI cables.
> 
> ...


The point is to produce the cleanest source possible. 1080p60 can be converted to either 1080i60 or 720p in a very straightforward manner. This means that there are fewer downsides to the decision made at the studios (which we saw before with very early 720p decisions).


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

why broadcast in 1080p60 when none of the directv receivers can output 1080p60.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dorfd1 said:


> why broadcast in 1080p60 when none of the directv receivers can output 1080p60.


Which is just fine, as that specification is not widespread at this time amongst the HDTV's in place nor being sold.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

gregjones said:


> The point is to produce the cleanest source possible. 1080p60 can be converted to either 1080i60 or 720p in a very straightforward manner. This means that there are fewer downsides to the decision made at the studios (which we saw before with very early 720p decisions).


OK, I can accept that... at least theoretically;

But I have to ask as the ancient cliché goes, "the proof is in the pudding," so have you or anyone else here really noticed a perceptible difference in PQ between telecasts originating from ESPN's new L.A. studio since it became operational and their usual eastern broadcasts from the Bristol studios? :sure:

Don't misunderstand me, as a technogeek I love all this stuff, but let's face it, the majority of viewers really don't give jack about all these technological innovations going on behind the scenes, and only care about the final end result of a great almost artifact-free picture on their large screen HDTVs.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Which is just fine, as that specification is not widespread at this time amongst the HDTV's in place nor being sold.


 Every 1080p TV does "60", but only a few can do "24". :lol:
It still comes down to the "all mighty" bandwidth, where MPEG-2 doesn't cut it and MPEG-4 isn't common.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> OK, I can accept that... at least theoretically;
> 
> But I have to ask as the ancient cliché goes, "the proof is in the pudding," so have you or anyone else here really noticed a perceptible difference in PQ between telecasts originating from ESPN's new L.A. studio since it became operational and their usual eastern broadcasts from the Bristol studios? :sure:
> 
> Don't misunderstand me, as a technogeek I love all this stuff, but let's face it, the majority of viewers really don't give jack about all these technological innovations going on behind the scenes, and only care about the final end result of a great almost artifact-free picture on their large screen HDTVs.


No, nor would I. I watch games, not the studio stuff. It is hard to determine the difference when I am pressing skip to get back to the field.

All kidding aside, I think they are trying to future-proof their operation. I am not sure they are broadcasting in 1080p60 **to** anywhere. My guess is that they want to source so that they have the option at some point to provide a source that will be more efficient at downconverting to 1080i or 720p. A good example of this would be for use in broadcasting today (720p) and Blu-Ray tomorrow (1080p?).


----------



## djrobx (Jan 27, 2009)

> Cool, so not only is HD bandwidth being wasted on PPV, but 1080p PPV, at that.


Actually, 1080p/24 is 20% more efficient than 1080i/60 for film material.

At 1080i/60, some interlaced fields must be repeated in order to bring the frame rate up to 60. This is called 3:2 pulldown. It makes much more sense to leave the source as 1080p/24, and let the receiver deal with the upconversion to 60fps if it's needed.

Of course, Dish and Direct spin it a big "blu ray quality" upgrade, when it's really just a logical thing to do.


----------



## sailermon (Oct 17, 2007)

When are they going to have 1080P for non-DOD, non-PPV, and for all of us that have 1080P HDTVs, not just 1080P/24?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'm not sure we'll see 1080p other than 1080p/24 .. as for content beyond that, it's unknown.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not sure we'll see 1080p other than 1080p/24


On the current hardware.


----------



## bodosom (May 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> All kidding aside, I think they are trying to future-proof their operation.


If that were the case wouldn't they be shooting in 4k? My vote is _this_ is just hype. I mean really -- who needs to see bad make-up in even higher resolution?


----------



## bodosom (May 31, 2004)

djrobx said:


> Actually, 1080p/24 is 20% more efficient than 1080i/60 for film material.


Not with a properly designed encoder. The frame-rate coversion pull-down happens in the decoder assuming the encoder inserts the repeat flags.

Back in the day* poorly implemented mpeg2 encoders made all sorts of mistakes that were cleaned up by display hardware. I believe commercial mpeg4 encoders actually work correctly.

*Looking at my Handbrake logs it seems we're still back in the day.


----------



## housemr (Jun 3, 2009)

hancox said:


> Cool, so not only is HD bandwidth being wasted on PPV, but 1080p PPV, at that.
> 
> National HD lags, but woot, we've got 1080p, that many can't, and even more won't, use.
> 
> Pfffffffft.


And still NO ESPNU in hd


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

housemr said:


> And still NO ESPNU in hd


indeed. especially annoying as my huskies are on the u tomorrow.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Folks .. This is not an HD anticipation thread .. let's not go there.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

who's anticipating? I'm ticked off RIGHT NOW.


----------



## sailermon (Oct 17, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not sure we'll see 1080p other than 1080p/24 .. as for content beyond that, it's unknown.





Jeremy W said:


> On the current hardware.


Why won't we see anything other than 1080p/24 and what do you mean by inferring 'not' on the current hardware?

Thanks


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

sailermon said:


> Why won't we see anything other than 1080p/24 and what do you mean by inferring 'not' on the current hardware?
> 
> Thanks


Current receivers have a Broadcom chip that can only output 1080p/24.
At some later time, another chip may be used, but it isn't yet.


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Current receivers have a Broadcom chip that can only output 1080p/24.
> At some later time, another chip may be used, but it isn't yet.


why can't the H20 output 180p24/


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dorfd1 said:


> why can't the H20 output 180p24/


Currently the software is being developed under contract by someone else, as was the H21/23, but these were moved in house for networking features and have "similar" software to the DVRs.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

gregjones said:


> Broadcasting in 1080p24 takes no more bandwidth (potentially less) than 1080i60. So you may not like it, but it is doing no more harm that HD PPV was before.


Well, that's close.

The 1080i we get as consumers is 1080i30, not 1080i60.

While uncompressed 1080p60 does take nearly 3 Gb/s, uncompressed 1080i30 and 720p are less than half that. 1080p24 is in about the same ballpark as 1080i30.

But that is not the issue, the issue is that to deliver it, it must be compressed. That is affected by a lot of factors. Interlaced content will show more artifacts for equivalent bit rates of progressive content (or will have to be compressed less for equivalent artifacts). 1080 pixel maps take more bandwidth than 720 pixel maps, making them harder to compress. Fewer frames per second generally takes fewer bits.

And when 1080i30 encodes 1080p24 content, it invokes "film mode" which means it sends it without the redundant "pull down" frames of 1080i, meaning that it can be compressed to about the same levels as 1080p24 (and it is pulled down and interlaced back to 1080i30 in your local decoder). In transmission, it essentially is no different from 1080p24. So when film content is being sent, the bit rate can be the same for 1080i30 and 1080p24 to give similar quality levels. But even with 30fps video, it is not much different than 1080p24 in that regard.

Then there is the question of encoding format. A local station broadcasting MPEG-2 at 15-16 Mb/s can be converted to a sat channel delivering MPEG-4 at 9 Mb/s with no visible quality loss whatsoever (they do that all the time on DBS).

So 1080p24 is not so much an indicator of a different need for bandwidth. The formats available (1080p60 takes twice as much and that is exactly why it is NOT available) are all about the same in that regard, and other issues such as compression and encoding format make them even more similar.

And, BTW, DTV has actually been sending us 1080p24 since they debuted the NFL channel, as 1080p24 is their native resolution.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

djrobx said:


> ...At 1080i/60, some interlaced fields must be repeated in order to bring the frame rate up to 60. This is called 3:2 pulldown. It makes much more sense to leave the source as 1080p/24, and let the receiver deal with the upconversion to 60fps if it's needed...


First, no one broadcasts 1080i60. What we get is 1080i30. "1080i60" is a theoretically possible format, but one no one uses because it would be less than practical and is superseded by all of the other, more practical formats. The "60" implies the frame rate, not the field rate, so 1080i60 would have a frame rate of 60 and a field rate of 120, which would have all of the drawbacks of 1080p60 with none of the benefits, making it a bad idea with no application possibilities at all.

Second, "film mode" senses and removes the redundant frames of pulldown during 1080i30 encoding of what may have been original 24 fps content, and redundant frames are not transmitted, so do not increase bit demand beyond that of 1080p24. A flag is set to re-add pulldown to the decoded output in your TV / STB / DVR. But those "repeated" frames are not transmitted, simply generated locally in the decoder by repeating transmitted frames.

Third, pulldown raises the _field _rate to 60, but the _frame _rate is still 30 for 1080i. 1080p60 sends the entire pixel map for each frame (60fps). 1080i30 sends _half _the pixel map for each field (60 fields/s), the equivalent of the entire pixel map for each frame (30fps), which is why 1080i uncompressed is a 1.5 Gb/s signal and 1080p60 uncompressed is a 3 Gb/s signal.

"What makes sense" is to use each format in the proper application. There currently is little difference between 720p60, 1080i30, and 1080p24, and they all look about the same because of it. All of them can be used widely in distribution applications. 1080p60 is impractical because it provides very little payoff for a penalty of twice the bandwidth, so is currently not used in any application. Broadcast is limited to 6 MHz, so 1080p60 restricted to that would have the artifacts of a 70's-era picture phone.

And lastly, while it is true that off-line encoding of 1080p24 could reap PQ benefits, real-time encoding (streaming 1080p24) is easily done at normal rates without visible artifacts, so the difference, being actually minute, is not much of a motivation to even do that, other than the hype factor that can then be attached to it.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

MIKE0616 said:


> ...If channels chose to cheap out up to now, how many are going to invest in the hardware needed to support 1080p? (ESPN comes to mind, as well as the FOX sports channels as 720 broadcasters that would be better in 1080p, IMO.)


Well, Mike, unless you have the same level of understanding of what the real differences between the formats are, as did the engineers for all of the broadcast and cable outlets who made the decisions what format to use, I can't see how your opinion means very much at all or has any relevancy. Show us credentials, and then folks might start to listen.

1080i is not inherently better than 720p, for instance, and 1080p24 is not inherently better than either of them. Actually, for those who actually do understand the differences, there are very compelling arguments stressing tangible benefits of 720p over either of the other two. You can't "cheap out" by going 720p, the equipment all costs the same regardless.

Why do you suppose there was even the possibility of a choice? If one were better than the other, that would be the one that everyone picked, no? There would be no reason to even propose alternate choices. The idea was to provide choices so that whatever was best in a particular application could be used, and so that we did not have a one-size-fits-all format that had restrictions in certain application scenarios.

The only reason that no one wanted to use 1080p24 was that legacy content is at 30 fps, and there was no practical method to change frame rates on the fly. Today, modern transcoders have made that possible and affordable, so it is a valid choice for networks (such as NFL) but instead of changing the output frame rate, the frame rate stays the same 24 fps, and the legacy content (30 fps) is transcoded on the fly to 1080p24. This makes a lot of sense if your library is full of 50 years of _NFL Films_ footage, originally shot at 24 fps.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

TomCat said:


> DTV has actually been sending us 1080p24 since they debuted the NFL channel, as 1080p24 is their native resolution.


Can you provide any evidence of this? I know the whole story about why you have this information, but to this day you're the only one who has ever said this. I'm not calling you a liar, but it's just such an off-the-wall thing that it's hard to believe it.


----------



## gary900 (Feb 16, 2009)

Herdfan said:


> Too bad I have a Sony TV.


Not all Sony's. I have a Sony 52" XBR6 I got at the beginning of this year and it is 1080P 24 FPS compatible according to the owners manual.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

gary900 said:


> Not all Sony's. I have a Sony 52" *XBR6* I got at the beginning of this year and it is 1080P 24 FPS compatible according to the owners manual.


It's "too bad" for everyone before the XBR*4*.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

TomCat said:


> Well, that's close.
> 
> The 1080i we get as consumers is 1080i30, not 1080i60.


I understand what you are attempting to say, but it is not correct. The 60 in 1080i60 refers to the refresh rate, which is separate from the interlacing indicated by i. 1080i60 means that 60 times a second, of the 1080 lines comprising the picture half (i) are refreshed. 1080i60 is the standard. Yes, that is 30 full frames, but it is not 1080i30 (which would be only 15 full frames).


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Can you provide any evidence of this? I know the whole story about why you have this information, but to this day you're the only one who has ever said this. I'm not calling you a liar, but it's just such an off-the-wall thing that it's hard to believe it.


I agree. Please show evidence. It would seem contrary to the very obvious software release that included 1080p24 support.


----------



## bodosom (May 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> I understand what you are attempting to say, but it is not correct. The 60 in 1080i60 refers to the refresh rate, which is separate from the interlacing indicated by i. 1080i60 means that 60 times a second, of the 1080 lines comprising the picture half (i) are refreshed. 1080i60 is the standard. Yes, that is 30 full frames, but it is not 1080i30 (which would be only 15 full frames).


By convention both i30 and i60 refer to the same thing (but i30 is uncommon usage). Even if you say i30fps and i60fps. If you want to be utterly unambiguous you'd say 1080i at 60 fields per second or 1080i at 30 frames per second. Since 1080i60 frames per second and 1080i15 frames per second aren't standard it's not really ambiguous. I blame all this on MPEG-2 which requires two fields per frame but permits them to be progressive, identical and (of course) full frames. The MPEG-4 improvements in dealing with this is why, as I noted earlier, 1080p24 should result in minimal space/bandwidth savings over 1080i60.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bodosom said:


> By convention both i30 and i60 refer to the same thing (but i30 is uncommon usage).


No, 1080i30 means nothing because it is not a standard.



bodosom said:


> ...1080p24 should result in minimal space/bandwidth savings over 1080i60.


The bandwidth savings are minimal, but the benefit is in the lack of conversion between 24fps source material and a display capable of displaying 1080p24. It costs no more (and possibly slightly less) in bandwidth and offers an advantage to some customers. All other customers get the same delivery they had previously. That seems to be a win-win situation to me.


----------



## bodosom (May 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> No, 1080i30 means nothing because it is not a standard.


Well colloquial conversation often uses terminology not codified in standards. 1080i30 appears in various places and it's meaning is reasonably well understood. As I said it's uncommon and probably derives from MPEG-2 discussions.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> No, 1080i30 means nothing because it is not a standard.


What is not a standard is the 1080inn notation. It is so bad that there is a move afoot to go towards a new syntax, 1080/nni where nn is uniquely the frame rate.

As bodosom notes, 1080i30 and 1080i60 are used interchangeably and both represent a frame rate of 30, the maximum documented by ATSC A/53 (broadcast) for both interlace _and_ progressive scan.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hancox said:


> National HD lags, but woot, we've got 1080p, that many can't, and even more won't, use.
> Pfffffffft.


That is why I NEVER wanted HBO or watched HBO because the movies I had either seen about 2 or 3 years before many times or they weren't worth watching!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Some of the later movies in 2008 and into 2009 begin to take advantage of the new 1080p format, in terms of presentation.

I enjoy some of the animated flicks of late - such as UP - which looks stellar in 1080 anything (1080i or 1080p). Some of these coming out on Blu Ray show just how good 1080 can look.

Commercial movies are just starting to get on board to embrace the potential.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

richierich said:


> That is why I NEVER wanted HBO or watched HBO because the movies I had either seen about 2 or 3 years before many times or they weren't worth watching!!!


Do you see all the newest movies on rental discs, PPV or in the theater and never want to see them again?

Do you not watch series television?

I haven't been to a movie theatre for several years and have never rented a movie. Even the three year old movies are new to me.

The term "not worth watching" comes up surprisingly often in rationalizations. How do you know?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> What is not a standard is the 1080inn notation. It is so bad that there is a move afoot to go towards a new syntax, 1080/nni where nn is uniquely the frame rate.
> 
> As bodosom notes, 1080i30 and 1080i60 are used interchangeably and both represent a frame rate of 30, the maximum documented by ATSC A/53 (broadcast) for both interlace _and_ progressive scan.


If so, it is a move pushed by people that don't understand video refresh rates. 1080i60 clearly defines a refresh rate of 60 where half of the lines are refreshed. Call it what you will, but many of us know there's a difference. If you had tried to setup your computer to output to your TV, the modes are very very different.


----------



## Podkayne (Nov 1, 2007)

I would pay money for an HR 2x-x00 that would output 1080p/60 to my (apparently) obsolete 58" Panasonic Plasma that I bought in July 2007. 

In the mean time I've had to pull the HDMI from the HR20-100 and connect it by component video cables, using the two HDMI's on the TV for my OPPO DVD and Sammy 3600 Blu Ray player.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> If so, it is a move pushed by people that don't understand video refresh rates. 1080i60 clearly defines a refresh rate of 60 where half of the lines are refreshed.


Any abbreviated notation is by convention. The 1080inn notation seems to have no conventional consistency regardless of the brand of display card you use. Computer display cards should have never been called "video cards" as they've never really made good, legal video until the advent of HDTV.

Display card scan refresh rates are most often handled separately from resolution. Using a poorly standardized combined notation isn't helping anyone.


----------



## ctaranto (Feb 7, 2008)

Podkayne said:



> I would pay money for an HR 2x-x00 that would output 1080p/60 to my (apparently) obsolete 58" Panasonic Plasma that I bought in July 2007.
> 
> In the mean time I've had to pull the HDMI from the HR20-100 and connect it by component video cables, using the two HDMI's on the TV for my OPPO DVD and Sammy 3600 Blu Ray player.


I'm guilty of not reading this entire thread, so I'm wondering why you aren't able to get 1080p/60 on your Panasonic Plasma? I have a Panasonic 54" G10 (2009), which just like yours takes HDMI. There is a setting on mine that allows for 1080p/48Hz (flicker-ville) or 1080p/60Hz. I would assume yours being a few years older would at least support 1080p/60Hz.

Have you set up your HR to output 1080p? When you're on a 1080p channel, do both 720p/1080i lights light up? When you hit "info" on your TV, does it show the mode the TV is in?

/c


----------



## bodosom (May 31, 2004)

ctaranto said:


> I'm guilty of not reading this entire thread, so I'm wondering why you aren't able to get 1080p/60 on your Panasonic Plasma?


Probably because the HR DVRs don't do 1080p60. They do 1080i60 or 1080p24.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> Any abbreviated notation is by convention. The 1080inn notation seems to have no conventional consistency regardless of the brand of display card you use. Computer display cards should have never been called "video cards" as they've never really made good, legal video until the advent of HDTV.
> 
> Display card scan refresh rates are most often handled separately from resolution. Using a poorly standardized combined notation isn't helping anyone.


But you can't toss out the name used appropriately for years now just because you don't like it.


----------



## ctaranto (Feb 7, 2008)

bodosom said:


> Probably because the HR DVRs don't do 1080p60. They do 1080i60 or 1080p24.


Funny, I don't remember saying the HR did 1080p60.

The TV will render then 1080p24 stream at 1080p24 @ 60Hz if it doesn't support another evenly divisible refresh rate (such at 48Hz or 72Hz). In my case, I can choose from 1080p24 @ 48Hz (flicker, but evenly divisible) or 1080p24 @ 60Hz (no flicker, but displayed with an uneven divisible refresh resulting in a frame unevenness). Refresh doesn't affect the frames/second being fed by the HR. It's always 1080p24 on the 1080p24 channels.

I prefer @60Hz since the flicker really annoys me. Going to the V10, which supports 72Hz, is even better since it's even divisible *and* flicker free (but I didn't feel like spending the premium for that over the G10).

Either way, the info on the TV should show 1080P on 1080P fed channels/sources.

/c


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

ctaranto said:


> Either way, the info on the TV should show 1080P on 1080P fed channels/sources.


One might well assume that, but when the signal is coming through at 24 frames per second, some televisions just don't deal with it.


----------

