# HD GUI



## beakor (May 29, 2007)

Is a hd gui still in the works this year? The current gui reminds me of my atari 2600.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

Loved the Atari!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Anything is possible, but we have no new information as of yet.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

beakor said:


> Is a hd gui still in the works this year? The current gui reminds me of my atari 2600.


Ditto. I wish we had an HD GUI for the HR-2x series.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I would to have a HD GUI; a HD Guide in particular.

I wonder how it would transition to HD while watching a SD channel(it happens :grin

Mike


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

HD GUI is my most wanted feature. So I'm with ya.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

beakor said:


> Is a hd gui still in the works this year? The current gui reminds me of my atari 2600.


And your point is...


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

ATARI said:


> And your point is...


We deserve an upgrade to at least a 800XL.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

rahlquist said:


> We deserve an upgrade to at least a 800XL.


I would suspect we'll see that new GUI in 2009 some time.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

Where would you find info on the GUI? Would it just be a press release? Or would someone from the inside just tell someone?


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Boo old interface. I hope you're right, hdtvfan0001! And I hope it's 1Q or 2Q. My parents (in their fifties) ask why I downgraded from Dish to DirecTV when they see that GUI... LOL


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

I would love HD GUI......! I just picked up a Blu-ray player, the HD GUI looks phenomenal. To me an HD DVR without HD menus just seems so silly. :bang With any luck we'll get it sooner than later.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I would suspect we'll see that new GUI in 2009 some time.


 Oh.... now don't be teasing everyone with that prediction. 

Unless of course you have top secret inside information that you would like to share with the class


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

Wouldn't that require two or more GUIs. What would happen when you were watching an SD channel? How would they superimpose a 1080i HD guide over a 480p background? That would require displaying two resolutions simultaneously.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

turey22 said:


> Where would you find info on the GUI? Would it just be a press release? Or would someone from the inside just tell someone?


It would probably be announced either on a conference call or a press release... but I'm sure you won't be able to miss the buzz around here... :sure:


----------



## Button Pusher (Jan 19, 2007)

I would love to see an HD GUI! The GUI on my Sony S350 looks awesome!


----------



## JeffTex42 (Sep 14, 2007)

txtommy said:


> Wouldn't that require two or more GUIs. What would happen when you were watching an SD channel? How would they superimpose a 1080i HD guide over a 480p background? That would require displaying two resolutions simultaneously.


If the HR upconverted everything to 720 or 1080, then there wouldn't be an issue. The question is what would the GUI look like on an SD set. But then again, why have an HR hooked up to an SD set to begin with.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

It probably would just down res it like it does with all the HD material on SD outputs right now.


----------



## tim99 (Sep 14, 2007)

I have two HRx's on SD sets because D* gave them to us for free so I replaced the SD PVR's I had.

Even used on an SD set its an advanced receiver on our network plus you get the HD channels albeit in letterbox. Once MRV is deployed then we have four more HD tuners that we can watch on our HD sets.

I wouldn't buy them for SD sets, but for free they're a nice upgrade with a few benefits over the old ones.

peace . . .



JeffTex42 said:


> But then again, why have an HR hooked up to an SD set to begin with.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> It would probably be announced either on a conference call or a press release... but I'm sure you won't be able to miss the buzz around here... :sure:


Yeah thats true...once somehting like that happens the site will probably crash cause of all the people on it tryin to post at the same time!


----------



## Noresults (Aug 25, 2007)

Why even comment on the GUI. It is only a guide. Is your eyesite bad? Let them spend money where it will create more ad revenue for them and more HD channels not worry about how the menu looks.


----------



## Cmnore (Sep 22, 2008)

Because it is a HIGH-definition device. It is designed to be connected to a HIGH-definition television set. Because we pay a PREMIUM to watch HIGH-definition content via these devices. Whay should we be satisfied with a craptastic 480i/p grade GUI?


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

HD GUI would be nice to have... We could see more channels or additional time in the guide. More info on the other screens would be nice.


----------



## TEN89 (Jun 27, 2003)

HD GUI?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

The main reason for an HD gui for me would be to have more guide rows/list rows/guide info/etc.

It would be cool if you could select how many rows you want as on different screens different amounts are preferable. For example, on my 96" projector setup I could put a lot more rows on the screen and still have them easily readable compared to a little 26" LCD or something.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Cmnore said:


> Because it is a HIGH-definition device. It is designed to be connected to a HIGH-definition television set. Because we pay a PREMIUM to watch HIGH-definition content via these devices. Whay should we be satisfied with a craptastic 480i/p grade GUI?


Well put.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

DirecTV did announce in an investor presentation last year that an HD GUI was coming this year. But they haven't really stuck to their hardware roadmap that they announced at the same time, so I have no idea if it's still on track or not. I'd like to hope so, but I have my doubts.


----------



## Martinrrrr (Apr 5, 2007)

Anyone heard anything new on the HD guide lately?


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

Martinrrrr said:


> Anyone heard anything new on the HD guide lately?


Nothing yet.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Martinrrrr said:


> Anyone heard anything new on the *HD guide* lately?


I think you meant HD GUI, graphical user interface. This has been in the works for a while, and we are all anxiously awaiting its debut ...


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

I'd love for the UI to be HD, but you think the boxes are slow and drop keypresses now? Wait until you double the resolution of the graphics. Hopefully they'll fix the speed issues first, and then worry with things like this later.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Cmnore said:


> Because it is a HIGH-definition device. It is designed to be connected to a HIGH-definition television set. Because we pay a PREMIUM to watch HIGH-definition content via these devices. Whay should we be satisfied with a craptastic 480i/p grade GUI?


You say it brother! Sounds logical to me.


----------



## JJJBBB (May 26, 2007)

HD everything please and thank you.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

The GUI looks fine to me. I can read it well. Does keeping the output on 1080i matter?


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

JosephB said:


> I'd love for the UI to be HD, but you think the boxes are slow and drop keypresses now? Wait until you double the resolution of the graphics. Hopefully they'll fix the speed issues first, and then worry with things like this later.


I'm beginning to think that the HR21 is hopeless when it comes to speed. I don't know if it's the hardware or what. But I'm beginning to lose hope that one day the HR21 will surprise us all and finally be fast permanently.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

What it could/should be.


----------



## CorpITGuy (Apr 12, 2007)

Noresults said:


> Why even comment on the GUI. It is only a guide. Is your eyesite bad? Let them spend money where it will create more ad revenue for them and more HD channels not worry about how the menu looks.


Actually, if your eye site is bad you would *want* a standard definition guide, because the text would appear larger.

I have good eye site and a good television - I'd like to have a three hour guide like Dish Network has had for what seems like eons now.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mertzen said:


> What it could/should be.


IMO, useless bells and whistles.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> IMO, useless bells and whistles.


I don't think the point was the "gadgets", but rather the rendering of the screen objects. Notice the gradation on the background? The crisp shadowed edges of the borders? The font size and clarity? Etc.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Drew2k said:


> I don't think the point was the "gadgets", but rather the rendering of the screen objects. Notice the gradation on the background? The crisp shadowed edges of the borders? The font size and clarity? Etc.


Ok, it looks _pretty_.  That's about it. Font size & clarity seem great on our current GUI. The ability to see a few hours ahead would be nice, but "the gradation on the background ... (and) crisp shadowed edges of the borders" are still bells and whistles. :dance07:


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> but "the gradation on the background ... (and) crisp shadowed edges of the borders" are still bells and whistles. :dance07:


I know, but you also only need 640K of memory,.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Ok, it looks _pretty_.  That's about it. Font size & clarity seem great on our current GUI. The ability to see a few hours ahead would be nice, but "the gradation on the background ... (and) crisp shadowed edges of the borders" are still bells and whistles. :dance07:


I've always thought the letters are fine on TV's under 36", but they're much too big for... TV's over that size and need to scale appropriately. During setup DIRECTV prompts the user to specify HD resolutions and widescreen or 4:3, just add one more prompt for screen size and let the user pick from a range: 32" or under, 32" to 50", over 50" and then scale the fonts. The larger TV's would see more data by nature of the fonts being reduced in size, and that's cool 
with me!


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> I've always thought the letters are fine on TV's under 36", but they're much too big for... TV's over that size and need to scale appropriately. During setup DIRECTV prompts the user to specify HD resolutions and widescreen or 4:3, just add one more prompt for screen size and let the user pick from a range: 32" or under, 32" to 50", over 50" and then scale the fonts. The larger TV's would see more data by nature of the fonts being reduced in size, and that's cool
> with me!


That would be genius (therefore, it won't happen).


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

GUI = bells and whistles

All I need is white text on a black background.

Now all you kids -- Get off my lawn!!


----------



## Wisegoat (Aug 17, 2006)

ATARI said:


> GUI = bells and whistles
> 
> All I need is white text on a black background.
> 
> Now all you kids -- Get off my lawn!!


Disagree 100%. GUI is at the heart of everything.

If the GUI sucks, no one cares how good the product is.

Why did TiVo survive, even after Replay TV and Ultimate TV fell? Even after cablecos and satellite came out with their own DVR's? Why is Apple still around? Why are we on the 7th version of Windows? Why are we not still using DOS?

The answer is the GUI. The GUI is how everyone relates to and interacts with the device. Text is good for newpapers and books. On a TV screen, especially one capable of millions of colors and pixels worth of information, a bright and attractive GUI with the ability to display a large amount of information in an easy to use manner is vital and necessary.

Defintely not "Bells and Whistles".


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Cmnore said:


> Because it is a HIGH-definition device. It is designed to be connected to a HIGH-definition television set. Because we pay a PREMIUM to watch HIGH-definition content via these devices. Whay should we be satisfied with a craptastic 480i/p grade GUI?


And many of us would rather worry about the functionality of the HIGH-definition content. An HD GUI wouldn't even make my top ten wishlist. I spend little time in the GUI, because I got a DVR to watch content. The GUI just makes functionality available. To argue about it too much is like saying you won't go to the theater because you don't like seeing trailers.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Wisegoat said:


> Disagree 100%. GUI is at the heart of everything.
> 
> If the GUI sucks, no one cares how good the product is.
> 
> ...


I could not disagree more. TiVo survived because of functionality. There is a difference in a usable interface and a gimmick interface. If you want to see a dysfunctional GUI, go pick up a Scientific Atlanta HD DVR. It defines a poor GUI.

You contradicted yourself. You said text was good for newspapers and books, then said a good GUI should have a large amount of information. Should that information be conveyed via pictograms to avoid using text?

TV screens are capable of millions of colors and pixels. They don't magically get there. I would rather have faster navigation as opposed to an HD gadget-tastic hopped up GUI. After all, if the GUI is slow, people will complain becaust the "GUI is how everyone relates to and interacts with the device."

I am not in favor of any GUI change that slows down response time. Other than that, I really don't care.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

Where is my HD gooey?


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I would very much like an HD GUI. Mine is kinda blurry on my HR20-700 using HDMI to a 42" plasma.


----------



## beakor (May 29, 2007)

reminds me of programming in basic


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

The guide is clunky and the sluggish remote is frustrating. About the only feature I use regularly is the QuickTune. Grabbing the laptop and going to the guide at TitanTV.com is much more useful right now.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

beakor said:


> reminds me of programming in basic


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

JosephB said:


> I'd love for the UI to be HD, but you think the boxes are slow and drop keypresses now? Wait until you double the resolution of the graphics.


The resolution of the graphics should not affect the speed of the box in any appreciable way.


----------



## LCDSpazz (Dec 31, 2008)

HD GUI seems like a good marketing tool if nothing else, and a way to one-up other providers, especially since they've all but stopped adding HD channels. Lots of people would be swayed by prtty menu pictures and assume the service was more advanced and superior based on the interface alone.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The resolution of the graphics should not affect the speed of the box in any appreciable way.


I have to ask because I don't know..... If performance is not an issue, why didn't the units release with HD GUI? Does it take longer to write software for the HD GUI, is the software more complex? I'm just wondering why the HD receivers didn't release with HD GUI.

All I know, I want HD GUI. This is the last BIG feature I want.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

A bad interface design in HD is still a bad interface. I hope that DirecTV has hired someone skilled in GUI design this time around.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> The resolution of the graphics should not affect the speed of the box in any appreciable way.


The problem with performance comes in managing what information to display. You are correct, in that the screen is painted regardless. It does take slightly more processing to handle more pixels, but not a huge impact. The problem is that the extra information (more rows or hours in the guide) requested will mean that more data has to be retrieved and formatted for display. This does have a significant impact on a machine with limited memory and a fairly inexpensive processor.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jeremy W said:


> The resolution of the graphics should not affect the speed of the box in any appreciable way.


More pixels is more work. You can pretty much bet that the Broadcom CG/overlay facilities don't include a hardware implemented GUI subsystem.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> The resolution of the graphics should not affect the speed of the box in any appreciable way.


How would that work? I have never seen any pc-like device that wasnt affected speed-wise if the graphics resolution changed.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> How would that work? I have never seen any pc-like device that wasnt affected speed-wise if the graphics resolution changed.


_IF_ there were hardware in there that implemented a graphics system similar to X, GL or DirectX (but much more focused), the impact would be limited. As it is, I suspect the CPU plays a much bigger part than most assume.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> The resolution of the graphics should not affect the speed of the box in any appreciable way.


My guide is about twice as fast when tuned to an SD channel than it is when rendering it at an HD resolution. I guess you could argue that the speed hit is from upscaling the SD graphics, but my guess would be it's just the raw pixel count.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

Does Dish have HD GUI? Everybody says (including me) that they have better hardware. I've never had HD with them though.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

MLBurks said:


> Does Dish have HD GUI?


No. They, like DIRECTV, seem pretty happy with having a relatively uniform interface across their entire product range. I don't believe that this is likely to change until such time as much of the SD equipment is gone (or at least being squeezed pretty hard).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> I have to ask because I don't know..... If performance is not an issue, why didn't the units release with HD GUI? Does it take longer to write software for the HD GUI, is the software more complex? I'm just wondering why the HD receivers didn't release with HD GUI.


Both of those. The current GUI was already designed, so they simply stretched it out and used it.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

If, and I hope, they implement a HD GUI, how would they handle a HR2x on a non-HD display? Will they have 2 GUIs depending on the selected resolution.

IF I had a non-HD display, I would NOT want to see a squeezed HD-GUI.

If there are in fact 2 GUIs, there is a little bit more processing that is required to make the check...right?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

qwsxz said:


> If, and I hope, they implement a HD GUI, how would they handle a HR2x on a non-HD display?


The HR2x is an HD-DVR. Hopefully, they won't even consider non-HD displays.


qwsxz said:


> IF I had a non-HD display, I would NOT want to see a squeezed HD-GUI.


Do you think those of us with HD displays have enjoyed seeing a stretched SD GUI for the past three years?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> The HR2x is an HD-DVR. Hopefully, they won't even consider non-HD displays.


But they have to, for a couple reasons. One is native output. I personally use native output because A) my receiver has a better scaler than the DVR, and B) I don't want 720p/60 converted to 1080i/30 (before ultimately being converted back to 60p for my display). In such a case, you end up with the worst of both worlds... the lower framerate of 1080i, and the lower resolution of 720p. But with native on, you have the potential of outputing SD. If an HD GUI were truly optimized for HD, then they would use the extra resolution to be able to give us more information in a single screen (more time slots in the guide, etc.). If that were scaled down to SD, the text may no longer be legible. Also, ideally, the GUI would be formatted for _three _resolutions, not just two, so that 720 and 1080 output could both be optimized in addition to 480.

The other reason is the physical SD outputs (composite, etc.). People may use them for a secondary display/video distribution, or they may use them when they take the DVR to watch recorded stuff at the cabin, or whatever. A GUI optimized for 1080 may not be legible on those outputs.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> The HR2x is an HD-DVR. Hopefully, they won't even consider non-HD displays.


They have to as long as they allow 480i SD output and I would imagine they wouldn't just shut this feature off.



Jeremy W said:


> Do you think those of us with HD displays have enjoyed seeing a stretched SD GUI for the past three years?


I don't enjoy it, but at least I can read it. If you shrink down HD to SD, it has the potential to become completely illegible, not just a nuisance.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Isn't the guide already being output at whatever selected resolution is? If I am on 720p, the guide is being output at that resolution. So really the ouptut resolution is not the issue here, it is the graphics and content of the guide itself. If they were to redesign the guide to include higher resolution graphics, it could still be outut at an given display resolution as it is still painting the same physical display space.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

The GUI/Guide are designed in SD. Sure, if your output is set to 720 or 1080, it gets scaled to that resolution, but since they are designed for the lower resolution, they don't take advantage of the higher resolutions. They could fit a LOT more information, and have it look a lot nicer, if it was optimized for the resolution being displayed. And if it was redesigned for HD, then scaled it down to SD, it likely wouldn't be legible because there wouldn't be enough pixels to clearly display the smaller text/objects. Set your PC to a high resolution, take a print screen, then scale it down to 640x480 and see what it looks like.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

DarinC said:


> The GUI/Guide are designed in SD. Sure, if your output is set to 720 or 1080, it gets scaled to that resolution, but since they are designed for the lower resolution, they don't take advantage of the higher resolutions. They could fit a LOT more information, and have it look a lot nicer, if it was optimized for the resolution being displayed. And if it was redesigned for HD, then scaled it down to SD, it likely wouldn't be legible because there wouldn't be enough pixels to clearly display the smaller text/objects. Set your PC to a high resolution, take a print screen, then scale it down to 640x480 and see what it looks like.


I think a 50 - 100% increase in data (like the programming guide space) would still be very legible when viewed at 480i. Combined with the previous suggestions of having the flexibility to customize the grid parameters, it is certainly workable.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> I think a 50 - 100% increase in data (like the programming guide space) would still be very legible when viewed at 480i. Combined with the previous suggestions of having the flexibility to customize the grid parameters, it is certainly workable.


false

They can't risk a complaint. They have to do 2 GUIs. Think about a Squeezed HD GUI on a 13" monitor. It is hard to tell the difference between 'l' and '1' now in SD.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

The only way to keep one GUI for both HD and SD is to upgrade the current GUI to HD without adding any content so that when it is squeezed down it is like the SD version today. 

This is the same concept networks have with their scores/stats during live sports (except HD only channels like HDNet) The graphics are in HD, but they aren't taking advantage of HD.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

No need to get too fancy. My blu-ray player's HD GUI looks great. The only thing that changes is the resolution. If I'm watching a blu-ray, the GUI is 1080P. If I pop in a DVD my GUI is 480i. The GUI layouts are identical. Obviously the 1080P GUI is crystal clear. 480i, not so much. Long story short, the channel's resolution should dictate GUI resolution. If you're watching HDNET the GUI should be HD. If you're watching Travel Channel the GUI will be SD.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

qwsxz said:


> false
> 
> They can't risk a complaint. They have to do 2 GUIs. Think about a Squeezed HD GUI on a 13" monitor. It is hard to tell the difference between 'l' and '1' now in SD.


Nonsense.

Every SD GUI I have had over the last 10+ years has had more information on it than the R/HRxx GUI. It is poor use of space. Period. My original RCA and Sony receivers used the space better, as did my DTiVo.

An HD GUI that scales to 480i in a reasonable way is absolutely possible. The ability to adjust the amount of information would be gravy, but the need to be legible on a smallish SD (or HD) monitor is not nearly as limiting as some seem to think, IMO.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

Hutchinshouse said:


> No need to get too fancy. My blu-ray player's HD GUI looks great. The only thing that changes is the resolution. If I'm watching a blu-ray, the GUI is 1080P. If I pop in a DVD my GUI is 480i. The GUI layouts are identical. Obviously the 1080P GUI is crystal clear. 480i, not so much. Long story short, the channel's resolution should dictate GUI resolution. If you're watching HDNET the GUI should be HD. If you're watching Travel Channel the GUI will be SD.


Exactly!

My BR behaves the same way. Of course the GUI isn't as pretty when it is in its "native" mode, and outputting 480i/p. It is however, perfectly legible.

It would be no different for the H/HRs.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

cygnusloop said:


> An HD GUI that scales to 480i in a reasonable way is absolutely possible.


I don't think that anyone is saying it's not _possible_. But if it's _optimized _for 1920x1080, or even 720x1280, then it may not be legible at 640x480.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

DarinC said:


> I don't think that anyone is saying it's not _possible_. But if it's _optimized _for 1920x1080, or even 720x1280, then it may not be legible at 640x480.


exactly. I don't want an HDGUI that is optimized to work on 480. I really want it optimized for 1080p/i, but I would settle for 720p. I want the most info and 480 just won't cut it.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

DarinC said:


> I don't think that anyone is saying it's not _possible_. But if it's _optimized _for 1920x1080, or even 720x1280, then it may not be legible at 640x480.


I think this debate is really about screen size, not resolution. Sure, text will have more "jaggies" when the resolution is scaled down, but we are really talking about size, right? (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

You can get HDTVs as small as 19". What I want on my 60" would be much different than what would be appropriate on one of those small guys.

There are two ways to go at this, I think. One, you make the "font size" user adjustable, as has been suggested many times. That would be fantastic, and would solve all the problems, no? For those using SD outputs to feed additional TVs, or smaller HDTVs, this could be set appropriately. If the font is large enough, the scaling artifacts shouldn't affect legibility. For those with larger screens, they can get more data on the screen at one time. This would, of course, be my first choice, and I expect the first choice of most.

My gut, however, says this isn't going to happen (I hope I am wrong). If that's the case, there has to be some middle ground that works for all, (SD, small HD and large HD).

The point in my previous post was that significantly more information could be presented on screen with a GUI design that could have all the whiz bang cosmetic goodness of an HD GUI, while still remaining legible on even smaller SD sets. What we have now, is kind of the worst case for those with (particularly larger) HD displays.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> No need to get too fancy. My blu-ray player's HD GUI looks great. The only thing that changes is the resolution. If I'm watching a blu-ray, the GUI is 1080P. If I pop in a DVD my GUI is 480i. The GUI layouts are identical. Obviously the 1080P GUI is crystal clear. 480i, not so much. Long story short, the channel's resolution should dictate GUI resolution. If you're watching HDNET the GUI should be HD. If you're watching Travel Channel the GUI will be SD.


This was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

cygnusloop said:


> I think this debate is really about screen size, not resolution. Sure, text will have more "jaggies" when the resolution is scaled down, but we are really talking about size, right? (Please correct me if I am wrong.)


Screen size can be a factor, but resolution is more important, IMO. It's higher resolution that allows you to use smaller fonts (to fit more data on the screen) while still being legible.



> You can get HDTVs as small as 19". What I want on my 60" would be much different than what would be appropriate on one of those small guys.


Perhaps if you're picking screen size based on what fits in the space, or what fits in your budget. But if you're picking your screen size the "proper" way (based on your viewing distance), then screen size doesn't matter. They would all appear the same to your eyes, because proper screen size scales linearly with viewing distance.



> There are two ways to go at this, I think. One, you make the "font size" user adjustable, as has been suggested many times. That would be fantastic, and would solve all the problems, no?


If you make it smaller than it currently is, it will lose legibility, UNLESS it is rendered at a higher resolution.


> The point in my previous post was that significantly more information could be presented on screen with a GUI design that could have all the whiz bang cosmetic goodness of an HD GUI, while still remaining legible on even smaller SD sets. What we have now, is kind of the worst case for those with (particularly larger) HD displays.


There's no question that they could make better use of their screen space to get a _little_ more information on the screen. But to get significantly more information on the screen, you need more resolution. If we're talking about "sprucing up" the current GUI with HD resolution to make it prettier, but retaining the elements in a size that keeps them legible at SD resolutions, then we're talking about a limited amount of improvement, IMO. So to me, that's not a big deal. But if we're talking about something that is optimized for the resolution you're using, which can make a significant impact on how much information you can clearly communicate in a screen, then that's definitely a worthwhile enhancement.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> Hutchinshouse said:
> 
> 
> > No need to get too fancy. My blu-ray player's HD GUI looks great.
> ...


But that's not really an apples to apples comparison. Your typical blu-ray player is going to have a limited amount of information that it needs to communicate in one screen. It's not like it's trying to list hours of programming for hundreds of channels, or give detailed info on the content. We currently do a LOT of paging, because of the limited amount of data that can be displayed in one screen. And even then, in some cases, there's still a lot of truncated data (like show titles in the guide). I know it LOOKS like it's just a simple matter of making the font smaller, but if you connect the composite video output to an SD display, it becomes obvious that it's large for a reason.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

DarinC said:


> Screen size can be a factor, but resolution is more important, IMO. It's higher resolution that allows you to use smaller fonts (to fit more data on the screen) while still being legible.


In that case they would need to account for basically 3 resolutions in an HD GUI design:

480
720
1080

Even so a 1080 gui on a 32" tv from say 5-7 feet away would literally be too small to read


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> In that case they would need to account for basically 3 resolutions in an HD GUI design:
> 
> 480
> 720
> 1080


I agree. 



> Even so a 1080 gui on a 32" tv from say 5-7 feet away would literally be too small to read


Of course. 5-7 feet isn't the appropriate distance from a 32" TV. It should be viewed from about 4 feet. For 5-7', you should be using something around 42".


----------



## Martinrrrr (Apr 5, 2007)

I should have clarified when I asked about an update the other day. While a HD GUI would be nice, I should have asked if a new guide was in the works that would display more info, such as a three hour wide block and more channels listed in one view. Would be nice if DirecTV would give us two options, one like we currently have and those that have a large screen could choose a guide with more info displayed. And, if another GUI was thrown it to make it fancier then all the better.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Martinrrrr said:


> I should have clarified when I asked about an update the other day. While a HD GUI would be nice, I should have asked if a new guide was in the works that would display more info, such as a three hour wide block and more channels listed in one view. Would be nice if DirecTV would give us two options, one like we currently have and those that have a large screen could choose a guide with more info displayed. And, if another GUI was thrown it to make it fancier then all the better.


It was announced that DIrectv would be getting a new gui sometime next year.. We can all hope that means HD with more info on each screen...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> It was announced that DIrectv would be getting a new gui sometime next year


Nope, it was announced for this year. That hasn't changed as far as I'm aware.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

DarinC said:


> I agree.
> 
> Of course. 5-7 feet isn't the appropriate distance from a 32" TV. It should be viewed from about 4 feet. For 5-7', you should be using something around 42".


I know that, but some of us dont always have enough money to put 42" or larger sets in the bedroom, but still want HD. I'm sure there are tons of people that have 32-40" tvs in bedrooms that end up being much farther away than the recommended viewing distance.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> I know that, but some of us dont always have enough money to put 42" or larger sets in the bedroom, but still want HD.


Yes, I understand that, in fact, I have a 42" display in the kitchen that is typically viewed from over 10'. But that's what fits. That's why ideally people should have the choice. But the point is that people with HD sets who view them from recomended distances _could_ get a lot more information in one screen if an HD GUI that was optimized for the resolution being viewed was used. Ideally, IMO, there'd be three "sizes"... one otpimized for SD, one for 720, and one for 1080. And the user could pick each one, or set it to "Auto" and have it switch based on the output resolution.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Yes, I understand that, in fact, I have a 42" display in the kitchen that is typically viewed from over 10'. But that's what fits. That's why ideally people should have the choice. But the point is that people with HD sets who view them from recomended distances _could_ get a lot more information in one screen if an HD GUI that was optimized for the resolution being viewed was used. Ideally, IMO, there'd be three "sizes"... one otpimized for SD, one for 720, and one for 1080. And the user could pick each one, or set it to "Auto" and have it switch based on the output resolution.


That's exactally how I see it.

Speaking for me, I'd like the option to get a few more channels on each page. If we had an HD GUI with the option to display X number of channels that would satisfy most people.

Mike


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

So it appears we are starting to get a consensus on what it "needs" to be.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> So it appears we are starting to get a consensus on what it "needs" to be.


But, are we going to see it on the HR2x platform?

I haven't heard of anything being worked on (I wouldn't know before anyone else here).

If I were on a SD channel (yes, people do watch them ), how much longer would it take for the Guide to come up if it were HD?

Mike


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> So it appears we are starting to get a consensus on what it "needs" to be.


Now if only we were some of the project managers and programmers working on the HR, we could actually do something about it.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Maby they are planing on making it a option so it will appear on the bill like HD GUI $5.00. I myself spend more time watching programing than looking at menus.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

OK, so I found a use for MediaShare after all...

Here are 2 pictures to illustrate the difference between HD and SD on this guide issue.

First I just did a simple screen cap of a portion of the On-line guide from the website and saved it as a 1024 x 768 jpg file. Using media share, I displayed this image at 720p via HDMI and 480i via composite input. Both pictures are taken from approximately 6 feet away from the 42" screen using a 3 mp camera, nothing fancy. 

I think the photos illustrate that given a good quality image to start with, the readability would not suffer significantly when output at 480i. 

Also, the readability is much better in person as well than shows in these not so good quality pics, but I had to come in under the upload cap.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

gfrang said:


> Maby they are planing on making it a option so it will appear on the bill like HD GUI $5.00. I myself spend more time watching programing than looking at menus.


I suspect that approach will not be taken at all.

The User Interface is part of the product (within the firmware), as would be the case with almost any Consumer video device.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> OK, so I found a use for MediaShare after all...
> 
> Here are 2 pictures to illustrate the difference between HD and SD on this guide issue.
> 
> ...


Ok, that is a good step for 4x3 720p to 4x3 480i...but not even close the problem we are talking about. Try a 720p 16x9 down to a 480i 4x3 without chopping off the sides. (i.e. Squeeze that puppy down) Post those results and lets discuss.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

qwsxz said:


> Ok, that is a good step for 4x3 720p to 4x3 480i...but not even close the problem we are talking about. Try a 720p 16x9 down to a 480i 4x3 without chopping off the sides. (i.e. Squeeze that puppy down) Post those results and lets discuss.


If designed correctly, the GUI would be "aware" of the selected screen aspect ratio and some basic formatting decisions would be made on the fly such as pig location, time banner size, etc to maximize readability.

There is certainly no doubt that manipulating the guide image to fit a smaller and differently shaped area is going to negatively impact the quality of it, but I think it would still be "usable". Unfortunately, the mediashare doesn't allow a full 16x9 screen output. I'll have to try and see if I can approximate it using the tvs zoom and aspect modes.

In reality though, it is an HD box designed to feed an HD screen. I don't see any reason to limit it's feature set so that someone using the composite or S-video outs to feed a small SD 4x3 screen doesn't suffer with a less than perfect guide screen. I had a 13" tv with an R15 in the bedroom for 2 years and the guide was useless unless you were 2 feet away from the screen, I didn't expect them to change it to compensate for that scenario.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

BattleScott - 

I agree 100% on the screen size issue. If I buy a 13" HD monitor, I wouldn't expect the development team to worry about my screen size, I do however think 4x3 SD is an issue.

My first point was that if they develop a HD GUI, Jeremy said they could do it without increasing the processor load. I am questioning this for the exact point you stated, what if the box has to make GUI decisions based on resolution, that obviously will take time and memory of which both supposedly are in short supply on the current iterations of the HR2x. 

If the dev team is limited to created one shared GUI for both SD and HD because of the limitations, I am curious how they are going to achieve that without affecting the SD 4x3 users which the box is clearly designed to handle. They could just shut off 4x3 support (which I personally wouldn't mind), but I would be shocked if they do that.

I guess for me I see the biggest issue not really the resolution, but the wide screen verses 4x3 problem. How are they going to solve that?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

qwsxz said:


> what if the box has to make GUI decisions based on resolution, that obviously will take time and memory


Time and memory? If it's reloading the GUI every time a button is pressed, sure. But in reality, it only needs to be loaded at bootup. Any modifications can be made dynamically if/when the resolution changes. One time. It's not nearly as demanding as you think it is.


----------



## qwsxz (May 12, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> Time and memory? If it's reloading the GUI every time a button is pressed, sure. But in reality, it only needs to be loaded at bootup. Any modifications can be made dynamically if/when the resolution changes. One time. It's not nearly as demanding as you think it is.


good point! Didn't even think of that!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Nope, it was announced for this year. That hasn't changed as far as I'm aware.


I know which you are talking about, but I believe that within the last 6 months they stated 2010... It was on a con call I believe, I'll see if I can find it...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> I know which you are talking about, but I believe that within the last 6 months they stated 2010... It was on a con call I believe, I'll see if I can find it...


It was briefly mentioned in one of the Conf calls earlier in the year and you are correct....2010 is when it was targeted. Like you, I don't recall the exact call it was....but read the transcript at the time and it was indeed stated.

So you're not losin' it.


----------

