# How do we match Directv's new stuff



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

DirecTV announced that their new bird is up and ready for action. They say new Hd channels are on the way with perhaps some 3D programming. They also say their rates will be going up, probably in Feb. Can we match anything besides the rate increases?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DISH has also announced "more HD on the way" ... nothing specific.
I believe they will be able to match or beat everything except the price increase.
DirecTV can remain the leader in increasing their prices.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

inazsully said:


> DirecTV announced that their new bird is up and ready for action.


The DirecTV 12 satellite is no where close to being ready for action. It's still in geo transfer orbit and according to some FCC documents it will be early spring before customers start to see new channels from it.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I personally would settle for PBS and BBCA, perhaps with the Rainbow Media Channels IFC, AMC, and Sundance as HD add ons. Without PBS that's only 4 new HD channels.

PBS, of course, would be 800 or so new channels.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

More HD channels without HD content is nothing to get excited about. BBC in HD seems to be the one single carrot out there. PBSHD is available off air so quite a few folks have that available now. With several major TV manufactures banging the 3D drum I wonder what that might lead to.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't know that DirecTV really has announced any 3D or not. I've seen some posts around the 'net that suggest they have... but it doesn't look like DirecTV has announced such a thing.

BUT... devil's advocate...

I think broadcast 3D might be a ways off. The 3D Blu ray spec was recently finalized, so maybe maybe we might see a Blu ray or 2 released later next year. There are already HDTVs compatible with the spec and at least the PS3 player is as well...

but I think broadcast would require more bandwidth than anyone wants to devote to it right now. Heck, we're already waiting for HD channels that exist but aren't carried yet by either Dish or DirecTV.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Here is a excerpt from the article on "Engadget HD"
With the successful launch of Direc TV 12 yesterday (12-29), the satellite company has already announced it will expand to more than 200 HD channels. Satellite 12 will begin operating in Q2 of 2010. Exact rate increases are listed in this article and mentioned the prospects of a new DirecTiVo and 3D channels. You can read this at engadget.com in the HD section.


----------



## kucharsk (Sep 20, 2006)

Yeah, but there's no announcement from D* as to what those channels will *be*.

As we know well, they may decide to add 199 HD PPV/VoD channels.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

You are correct of course. We have all learned the hard way to take any announcements from "D" or Dish with a huge grain of salt. But from a marketing standpoint "D" is keeping their name in front of the public. How many new HD channels can you conjure up anyway? With Panasonic spending millions on 3D displays and announcing sets in dealers in 2010 I look for 3D to be the next revolution in the USA and has already started in the UK. Hence the currently un needed extra band width available with "D's" Sat 12.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know that DirecTV really has announced any 3D or not. I've seen some posts around the 'net that suggest they have... but it doesn't look like DirecTV has announced such a thing.
> 
> BUT... devil's advocate...
> 
> ...


Directv will show 3D stuff at CES. But you'll need glasses. Personally I think it's a scheme to make people think they need one. I'm not buying into this one.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Pretty much anything that's sold today or ever has been sold, from cars to TV's to CD's to DVD's is based on a scheme to make people think they need one. Look at Blu-ray for a perfect example. LCD's started with 720P then 1080P then 120hz now 240hz then LED local dimming then LED side lit. 3D is the next logical step in the "I gotta have that" scheme, and you'll probably see plasma hanging their hat on 3D. Then will come OLED followed my nano technology and then holograms. It's a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way (Superman).


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Still enjoying 2D HD.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

So will the "3D" channel look like the old analog channels with ghosting?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> So will the "3D" channel look like the old analog channels with ghosting?


Info is sketchy right now... but from what I've read, it sounds like the home method will be using "shutter" glasses that will alternate left and right eye shutters so each eye sees the proper image. Meanwhile, the HDTV will show alternating left/right images that are properly "filtered" by the glasses.

In theory, we'd be talking about 120Hz being displayed by the TV, with alternating 60 fps of left eye/right eye images... and the shutter glasses open/close in sync such that your brain puts both images together as a single 3D image.

I've been looking for the approved spec somewhere online, but either I'm really dumb or it is really hard to find!


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> In theory, we'd be talking about 120Hz being displayed by the TV, with alternating 60 fps of left eye/right eye images... and the shutter glasses open/close in sync such that your brain puts both images together as a single 3D image.


Just thinking about this makes my brain hurt; it's like a migraine inducer.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RasputinAXP said:


> Just thinking about this makes my brain hurt; it's like a migraine inducer.


Quite possible that the watching of such a config might be headache inducing as well... I wonder about those with epilepsy in particular, since they have notoriously had issues with some TV programs or interlaced broadcasts... 3D might be something that could be a problem for them as well.

(not making a joke there, seriously I am wondering if that will be a problem).


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

When do we get the Food Channel 3D?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> (not making a joke there, seriously I am wondering if that will be a problem).


Epilepsy and migraine have a lot of the same root causes. I have a strong feeling it's going to be a problem.


----------



## Grandude (Oct 21, 2004)

Jim5506 said:


> When do we get the Food Channel 3D?


Won't be worth it in 3D until they introduce 'smellovision' in 2012.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Paul Secic said:


> *Directv will show 3D stuff at CES*. But you'll need glasses. Personally I think it's a scheme to make people think they need one. I'm not buying into this one.


How ?

DTV is skipping the show this year also.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Grandude said:


> Won't be worth it in 3D until they introduce 'smellovision' in 2012.


For theater it has already been done, here's a quote from Wiki :

Smell-O-Vision was a system that released odors during the projection of a film so that the viewer could "smell" what was happening in the movie. The technique was created by Hans Laube and made its only appearance in the 1960 film Scent of Mystery, produced by Mike Todd, Jr., son of film producer Mike Todd. The process injected 30 different smells into a movie theater's seats when triggered by the film's soundtrack.

As for 3D, well it hasn't been very successful in theaters since it was introduced in 1922. Yep, that's right, it has been around 87 years with marginal success all that time, including now.

If the TV 3D is going to take glasses, or have the blurry picture of the no glasses required kind seems to, it will be a flash in the pan. That's what I really think will happen. I think a lot of experts are reading the tea leaves wrong.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't think the glasses will be as much of an issue as the cost of the equipment to get HD. Most people with HD aren't going to want to run out and buy a new TV just for 3d. If the industry charges more for 3D sets I don't see consumers going mainstream on that either.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

That sounds remarkably like the reason given for the demise of Blu-ray. If the big boys want to push 3D, we'll have 3D, just like they pushed Blu-ray and now we have Blu-ray. There is only so much profit left to be squeezed out of the LCD and plasma technology. So, they will promote OLED, SED or 3D. With Panasonic taking the lead it looks like the next push will be 3D. Avatar in 3D is awesome.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Well the big boys have been pushing 3D off and on since 1922 and look where it is at today. So far, about the same number of movies in 3D that were done in the 50's, which was considered the 'golden age of 3D'.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Not sure what big boys you're referring to but newer 3D technology being used in movies right now. like with Avatar, is stunning. But the big boy's I'm talking about includes Panasonic and we're talking about collaboration with TV networks to provide 3D programming as they are now in the UK. Panasonic isn't going to spend multi millions of $ without some assurances that they will get a return on their investment. Panasonic claims that their 3D plasmas will be available in stores in 2010. And Panasonic is not alone.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

3D has always looked stunning when compared to non-3D of the period, nothing new about that.

My contention is that 3D with glasses isn't going to fly in the home. Heck, you can't even find the remote oft times.  Imagine what it will be like to have to keep them handy for the whole family, not to mention the viewing angle for effect is tighter.

The good side may be that what they will introduce won't require the glasses. I read something this morning that indicated that will be the case. We'll see what comes out at CES shortly.

At worst, we'll get newer screens at the lower end that aren't 3D but may incorporate some of the things the lower end doesn't have now.


----------



## Herb S (Sep 11, 2006)

Grandude said:


> Won't be worth it in 3D until they introduce 'smellovision' in 2012.


Let me know when they come up with a tv that has a slot where the food they are making pops out (ala Star Trek's replicators).


----------



## 722921 (Jan 3, 2008)

inazsully said:


> Panasonic claims that their 3D plasmas will be available in stores in 2010. And Panasonic is not alone.


Mitz DLPs have been compatible for some time now, AFAIK. They have an interface for an emitter box that sends signals to your glasses.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Samsung has some sets as well... including mine from 2008 that have 3D support.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Yep, the manufacturers have their TV's ready though there is no plug standard. Sounds like this is going be a great gain in 2010 for most homes particularly as HDMI without 3-D has been so problem free. From Communications Technology:


> HDMI Licensing, LLC, the agent responsible for licensing the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) specification, announced in late December several developments regarding 3D formats and the HDMI Specification Version 1.4.
> 
> In order to respond to recent input from the industry, the HDMI Consortium will meet in late January 2010 to add an additional 3D format (tentatively named "Top/Bottom") to the HDMI specification, supporting the use of this format over HDMI.


Yeah, the big boys could screw it up as badly as ever, even as they back buyers away from BluRay. So they're going to meet in January 2010 to discuss the design for a source connection standard so the public can buy 3-D TV's in March.

I do like competitive planning. Be the first on the market, even if you must sell the screens before the source connection standard is set. Set a standard that screws with the millions of existing set top boxes.

In about 2012, we'll be reasonably sure we can buy in without paying a premium to be a beta tester.:nono:


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

With both Sony and Panasonic saying they are 100% behind 3D and ESPN announcing the June 11, 2010 launch of their ESPN 3D channel and Vizio announcing their new 47". 55" and 72" ($3499) 3D 480hz local dimming LCD's available in August of 2010 it looks like the future is at hand.


----------



## 356B (Oct 11, 2008)

inazsully said:


> With both Sony and Panasonic saying they are 100% behind 3D and ESPN announcing the June 11, 2010 launch of their ESPN 3D channel and Vizio announcing their new 47". 55" and 72" ($3499) 3D 480hz local dimming LCD's available in August of 2010 it looks like the future is at hand.


Discovery channel is in too, from what I hear, projections are basically now and LCD's etc. will soon follow......I wonder who's going to do the glasses? now that might be a great place to invest in stock, if your a gambler.....:lol:


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

356B said:


> Discovery channel is in too, from what I hear, projections are basically now and LCD's etc. will soon follow......I wonder who's going to do the glasses? now that might be a great place to invest in stock, if your a gambler.....:lol:


The new 3-d channel is being launched by Sony, Discovery and IMAX. Reportedly as equal partners.

Lots of different 3-D screens being shown. T It will be awhile before the dust settles and it will be clear what type display and what glasses will become the most popular. 3-D without glasses has been shown but will probably not reach Home Tv's for many years.

There are also multiple standards of 3-d signals. Hopefully they will all agree, perhaps on the standard that Blu-ray has accepted. Not sure what, if any, 3-d standard will be able to be supported on existing Dish or DirecTv receivers. Currently I suspect they only support the old 2 color version that we have occassionally seen broadcast which is far from the best for modern 3-D pictures.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

inazsully said:


> DirecTV announced that their new bird is up and ready for action. They say new Hd channels are on the way with perhaps some 3D programming. They also say their rates will be going up, probably in Feb. Can we match anything besides the rate increases?


3D TV is just a scheme to sell televisions that probably work right. Personally I'd like more HD.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Quite possible that the watching of such a config might be headache inducing as well... I wonder about those with epilepsy in particular, since they have notoriously had issues with some TV programs or interlaced broadcasts... 3D might be something that could be a problem for them as well.
> 
> (not making a joke there, seriously I am wondering if that will be a problem).


That's a good point Stewart.


----------



## 356B (Oct 11, 2008)

I see this is similar to what HD was years ago, remember when HD TV's cost 10K and there was zero broadcasting or programing of any kind. Maybe when the bugs are gone, or it's gone the way of the LaserDisc.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

As a DIRECTV sub, I'm with you guys in thinking that 3-D isn't terribly interesting and it's not going to be something you all on the dish side need to worry about. You've got a lot of interesting stuff that will keep you happy both short term and long.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

lparsons21 said:


> For theater it has already been done, here's a quote from Wiki :
> 
> Smell-O-Vision was a system that released odors during the projection of a film so that the viewer could "smell" what was happening in the movie. The technique was created by Hans Laube and made its only appearance in the 1960 film Scent of Mystery, produced by Mike Todd, Jr., son of film producer Mike Todd. The process injected 30 different smells into a movie theater's seats when triggered by the film's soundtrack.
> 
> ...


In the 1950's a TV channel showed a 3D movie and you had to a store for glasses. My dad bought them for $5. It was horrid! True story.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As a DIRECTV sub, I'm with you guys in thinking that 3-D isn't terribly interesting and it's not going to be something you all on the dish side need to worry about. You've got a lot of interesting stuff that will keep you happy both short term and long.


Comon Stuart. Don't throw water on the parade. You're supposed to be a champion of cutting edge technology. With Discovery 3D, and ESPN 3D announcing their launches how can you not embrace the future? The chairman (or some higher up) of Sony said, "Today 3D is clearly on its way to mass market, The 3D train is on track and Sony is ready to drive it home". A rep from Panasonic says, "in 3-5years 50% of TV's will be 3D". One thing I have learned about 3D. To have true 1080P 3D you need HDMI 1.4. 1.3 on it's own cannot handle true 1080P 3D. It can however handle 1080i 3D.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> One thing I have learned about 3D. To have true 1080P 3D you need HDMI 1.4. 1.3 on it's own cannot handle true 1080P 3D. It can however handle 1080i 3D.


I don't know where you learned that, but there is a lot of misinformation being spread around with people hung up on HDMI 1.4.

The Blu ray spec recently approved for 3D supports full 1080p 3D over HDMI 1.3 cables. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Now... it might be true that current devices (Blu ray players, HDTVs, etc.) might not have full 1080p 3D capability in them... and that they might have to settle for less... but that's not because of an HDMI 1.3 limitation.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Comon Stuart. Don't throw water on the parade. You're supposed to be a champion of cutting edge technology. With Discovery 3D, and ESPN 3D announcing their launches how can you not embrace the future? The chairman (or some higher up) of Sony said, "Today 3D is clearly on its way to mass market, The 3D train is on track and Sony is ready to drive it home". A rep from Panasonic says, "in 3-5years 50% of TV's will be 3D". One thing I have learned about 3D. To have true 1080P 3D you need HDMI 1.4. 1.3 on it's own cannot handle true 1080P 3D. It can however handle 1080i 3D.


Not so much throwing water as giving you guys a ray of sunshine. Looking at what Sling Media is announcing, stuff that will only work with Dish DVRs, well that makes me keenly aware that both dish and DIRECTV have some great stuff ahead, that's all.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inazsully said:


> A rep from Panasonic says, "in 3-5years 50% of TV's will be 3D".


He may have said that, but my 720p Pany Plasma is going on 7 years and I still have seen no reason to upgrade to 1080p because some of what I watch still isn't in HD and the rest is in 1080i or 720p.

"In 3-5 years 20% _or more_ of TV's _sold_ will be 3D" likely will be accurate.

Someone needs to take the time to consider the industry costs associated with HD startup and the time it took to roll it out to the general market. While I have a great deal of respect for what James Cameron has accomplished, he had to invent cameras for "Avatar." Does anyone honestly think the networks are going to write off their recent HD investments because 10% of their audience is willing to spend a few thou to see things in 3D. They don't even have the capacity to serve up 1080p. And Comcast is still trying to limit my streaming and downloads because of cost-of-bandwidth issues.

There's a very limited content market for 3D. I doubt anyone will ever see Stewart or Colbert or Beck or Hannity in 3D and who would want to?

By the way, has anyone else noticed that NBC has been touting color TV in their promos?


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know where you learned that, but there is a lot of misinformation being spread around with people hung up on HDMI 1.4.
> 
> The Blu ray spec recently approved for 3D supports full 1080p 3D over HDMI 1.3 cables. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
> 
> Now... it might be true that current devices (Blu ray players, HDTVs, etc.) might not have full 1080p 3D capability in them... and that they might have to settle for less... but that's not because of an HDMI 1.3 limitation.


OK, here is my understanding of how HD3D is supposed to work and why HDMI 1.4 will be required for FULL 1080P.
The problem with 3D and HDMI 1.3 is that there is no standard or spec for how to handle dual left/right eye information in the video stream because they finalized the spec before the 3D issue was worked through.
HDMI 1.4 is a new chipset. Basically HDMI 1.4 is the same band width as 1.3, but it adds the meta-data to allow "TWO" distinct 1080P signals to be sent together in such a way that the TV can "see" them as two distinct 1080P signals.
Since 1.3 has no standard or industry-agreed way to ship left/right eye 1080P HD over 1.3, there is no way of knowing if any particular 3D HD source will actually work with any given display.
HDMI 1.4 solves all those problems by delivering two real 1080P signals to the TV in a way that the TV recognizes and can deal with.
Now the new HD3D standard has arrived. Only HDMI 1.4 devices can deliver FULL HD1080P to each eye.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> OK, here is my understanding of how HD3D is supposed to work and why HDMI 1.4 will be required for FULL 1080P.
> The problem with 3D and HDMI 1.3 is that there is no standard or spec for how to handle dual left/right eye information in the video stream because they finalized the spec before the 3D issue was worked through.
> HDMI 1.4 is a new chipset. Basically HDMI 1.4 is the same band width as 1.3, but it adds the meta-data to allow "TWO" distinct 1080P signals to be sent together in such a way that the TV can "see" them as two distinct 1080P signals.
> Since 1.3 has no standard or industry-agreed way to ship left/right eye 1080P HD over 1.3, there is no way of knowing if any particular 3D HD source will actually work with any given display.
> ...


You're mixing apples and oranges I think.

HDMI 1.4 is attempting to include 3D transmission specs in it... and that's fine. but that doesn't mean HDMI 1.3 can't do it.

The Blu ray folks recently approved their 3D spec for Blu ray media, and they do not require HDMI 1.4 to support what they ratified.

There certainly could be things that HDMI 1.4 will support that HDMI 1.3 doesn't (otherwise why bother with a new spec)... but it shouldn't be confused with whether or not HDMI 1.3 will support full 1080p 3D or not.

Simply put... HDMI 1.3 does have the bandwidth and capability to support the 3D spec the Blu ray folks approved. There's no reason why a broadcast 3D spec couldn't similarly support HDMI 1.3.

The larger problem will be how many of the current "3D ready" HDTVs truly support the recently decided methods of 3D transmission and how many existing set-top boxes/Blu ray players also support it.

But... IF there is a problem, it won't be because of the HDMI 1.3 spec vs HDMI 1.4 spec... but rather a lack of CPU power in existing HDTVs/set-top boxes/Blu ray and/or lack of support to accept as input (HDTVs) or output (set-top r Blu ray) of 120Hz or higher signals.

To get 1080p 60fps in full 3D/HD you'd need to have a device that outputs 120Hz and an HDTV that accepts 120Hz for the left-eye/right-eye method. The "problem" here is that while many HDTVs claim 120Hz refresh rates, they don't all accept 120Hz source... same goes for set-top/Blu ray devices that might not output 120Hz source.

But these are not because of HDMI 1.3... but rather limitations of the other technology in the TVs/players.

I hope that made sense.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

inazsully said:


> Here is a excerpt from the article on "Engadget HD"
> With the successful launch of Direc TV 12 yesterday (12-29), *the satellite company has already announced it will expand to more than 200 HD channels*. Satellite 12 will begin operating in Q2 of 2010. Exact rate increases are listed in this article and mentioned the prospects of a new DirecTiVo and 3D channels. You can read this at engadget.com in the HD section.


This statement isn't completely accurate; DIRECTV has only announced that they will have the _capacity_ for 200 HD channels, not that they will actually provide that many.

How many of the new HD channels will be 1080p PPV channels? How much D12 bandwidth will get eaten up by HD locals? Does DIRECTV actually have contracts in place for that many HD channels? And the big question, how many true national HD channels will DIRECTV add (not PPVs, not RSNs, etc)?

I think that DIRECTV subscribers will end up being disappointed, just as they were with D11.

Fortunately FiOS is my current TV provider and they already have 48 HD channels that DIRECTV doesn't carry (source: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1058081). I would be surprised as heck if DIRECTV adds that many with D12.

If FiOS went away for me today (as it might with the pending sale to Frontier), I would go to Dish Network and not DIRECTV based on E*'s current HD offerings and their vastly superior DVRs.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Reaper said:


> ...
> How many of the new HD channels will be 1080p PPV channels? How much D12 bandwidth will get eaten up by HD locals? Does DIRECTV actually have contracts in place for that many HD channels? And the big question, how many true national HD channels will DIRECTV add (not PPV, not RSNs, etc)?
> 
> I think that DIRECTV subscribers will end up being disappointed, just as they were with D11.


All assumption on your part. I'll bet you're very wrong.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> All assumption on your part. I'll bet you're very wrong.


And that's an assumption on your part. This is an _opinion_ forum after all, and until we see what DIRECTV actually rolls out with D12, we are all making assumptions. However, mine are grounded in the disappointing reality of the number of national HD channels that DIRECTV added with their last bird, D11 - which happens to be what caused me to walk from DIRECTV to FiOS a year ago. And I must say, thank you DIRECTV!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Reaper said:


> And that's an assumption on your part. This is an _opinion_ forum after all, and until we see what DIRECTV actually rolls out with D12, we are all making assumptions.


I was going to put "that being said" between my 2 sentences, but am annoyed by it like on Curb Your Enthusiasm. :lol:

D11 served it's purpose...more LiLs.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

I found the following recent article to be illuminating. In it, the CFO of DIRECTV indicates that he thinks that HD may be reaching its "saturation point" (read: point of diminishing returns).

http://www.multichannel.com/article...ptake_Trending_Down.php?rssid=20059&q=directv

I don't know about you but I won't be satisfied until every channel that I watch is available and carried in HD.


----------



## david_jr (Dec 10, 2006)

phrelin said:


> He may have said that, but my 720p Pany Plasma is going on 7 years and I still have seen no reason to upgrade to 1080p because some of what I watch still isn't in HD and the rest is in 1080i or 720p.
> 
> "In 3-5 years 20% _or more_ of TV's _sold_ will be 3D" likely will be accurate.
> 
> ...


Not to mention that there are still many national network programs that are not yet in HD, CBS this morning comes to mind, plus many of the "reality shows". Very few of the local stations are broadcasting their news in HD yet. I think we should concentrate on improving the current crop of HD content before we start thinking about the "next big thing". I personally don't need to see 3D in my home at what it's going to cost. If I want to see it I'll go to a theater, but again, no theaters around me show 3D either. Must not be that much demand for it, aye?


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Theaters near you may not be showing Avatar in 3D but try getting into an IMAX 3D theater. The numbers will be, or already are, available concerning the 3D penetration of the movie Avatar. As far as WE should concentrate on improving the current crop of HD content. It ain't WE, it's THEM, and they see little profit in improving the current crop of HD content. They do see a big old hunk of profit in new technology and right now 3D is the horse they are going to ride. When you see ESPN announcing the start of ESPN 3D in June, and we all know who owns ESPN, as well as The Discovery Channel, as well as Sony being so gung ho, and Panasonic bringing several plasma models out in 2010, and Vizio bringing out three 3D models in August. Hey, I'm just sayin, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it ain't no peacock.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

3D is a fad that comes and goes.

Right now it is coming, it will go soon and we can all laugh about how the silly marketing firms tried to sell us another boondoggle.

Until 3D is viewable without glasses, it will never sell.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're mixing apples and oranges I think.
> 
> HDMI 1.4 is attempting to include 3D transmission specs in it... and that's fine. but that doesn't mean HDMI 1.3 can't do it.
> 
> ...


It kind of makes sense but wouldn't they have to change the specs of 1.3 to allow for the delivery of two distinct 1080P signals? Which is exactly what 1.4 allows. I only know what I read and I have to choose what sounds logical to me. It seems like if in 1.3 there are, as you say, limitations of the other technology in current TV's/players then the new up coming TV's/players that intend to show 3D should incorporate HDMI 1.4. From what I read, this chip will not increase the cost of manufacturing at all, just make it uniform for all HDMI 1.4 devices to 100% for sure be compatable with all other HDMI 1.4 equipped devices. Seems like a no brainer to me. I understand that Sherwood has already announced the release of a 1.4 receiver. Which begs the question. If you are going to buy a new TV or receiver or Blu-ray player or gaming machine, should you make sure that it has HDMI 1.4 even if you currently have no interest in 3D? Don't we always talk about future proofing as much as possible? Keep in mind, the 1.4 version should not cost any more than the 1.3 version.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

inazsully said:


> It kind of makes sense but wouldn't they have to change the specs of 1.3 to allow for the delivery of two distinct 1080P signals?


That's why I said it is apples and oranges... The Blu ray 3D spec calls for use of MVC compression (similar to AVC) for Blu ray content... and how that will work with the left/right images is that Left/right images are transmitted in sequence as one stream and the MPEG4 keyframe+differences method will be used.

This means, for example... Left keyframe is sent, then a right differences-only frame is sent... then a left differences only frame.. then another right differences only... and so forth.

The left/right streams are merged into one 120Hz stream (for 60Hz playback) and then the 3D HDTV knows to extrapolate left eye/right eye from the stream it receives.

The brag here is that this method allows full resolution 1080p transmission with only a 50% increase in overhead! Instead of the 100% overhead that would be required by sending dual separate streams.

HDMI 1.4 might very well be capable of dual separate streams and that would allow an entirely different method to be used... BUT that is not what Blu ray adopted for their 3D spec... so even a new Blu ray player that comes with HDMI 1.4 in the future will not use the new HDMI 1.4 "modes" unless and until the Blu ray folks change their spec.

Now, broadcast TV could wait for HDMI 1.4 and not adopt a spec that uses the same modes HDMI 1.3 would support... but we'll have to wait and see on that.

There are no HDMI 1.4 devices out yet, because the spec has not been settled. Even when that is settled, how many folks who have bought HDTVs in the last 1-2 years will trash their sets to run out and buy a new one?

The smart money is on supporting HDMI 1.3 and what it can do... and pushing 3D to those customers who already have 3D ready HDTVs in their homes. Otherwise, in this economy, 3D will be dead before it gets a start.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Thanks Stewart. You should pop over to AVS forum and lend a hand to the huge huge 3 day old thread for the 72" Vizio. Lots of very interesting debates going on. I would love to see you respond to some of these folks.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RAD said:


> It's still in geo transfer orbit and according to some FCC documents it will be early spring before customers start to see new channels from it.


More specifically, the estimated date is somewhere on or before May 5th. It is conceivable that Echostar 14, scheduled to launch in March, will be live before DIRECTV 12 is.


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

Until DirectV has something like the VIP where i can control two TVs, I'm not moving.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

fsquid said:


> Until DirectV has something like the VIP where i can control two TVs, I'm not moving.


To "match DIRECTV", Echostar would really have to dumb down their DVRs - not only with duo control but they would also have to do away with the true 16:9 interface, PIP, and supported external storage. Oh, and they'd have to make them much less responsive. 

I miss the Dish DVR...


----------



## fsquid (Aug 30, 2006)

That's why I won't switch even though I really want GolTV and the MLB Network. Plus, it would be cheaper. But, that duo control is a lifeblood in our home.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Not to mention that you can plug an outside antenna into the back of the 722 while "D" makes you buy a second separate device to do this.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

inazsully said:


> Not to mention that you can plug an outside antenna into the back of the 722 while "D" makes you buy a second separate device to do this.


Incorrect. I have an OTA antenna plugged into my DIRECTV HR2* (that I use for Sunday Ticket). No prob.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

fsquid said:


> That's why I won't switch even though I really want GolTV and the MLB Network. Plus, it would be cheaper. But, that duo control is a lifeblood in our home.


Yeah, my wife would be pissed to give up MLB Network.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Reaper said:


> Incorrect. I have an OTA antenna plugged into my DIRECTV HR2* (that I use for Sunday Ticket). No prob.


What HR2x has a OTA tuner built into it?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

GrumpyBear said:


> What HR2x has a OTA tuner built into it?


The HR20


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> The HR20


Can you get a HR20 from Direct anymore? Even more confusing that they removed OTA on all the other HR2x machines then.
Oh and thanks for the quick reply


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The HR20 DVR, which is no longer made, has built-in OTA. The HR21, HR22, and HR23 require an external module to use OTA. It was basically a cost-saving move, based on the fairly low demand for OTA. I had heard at one point that only about 5% of homes with a cable, satellite or fiber TV provider used OTA.

I will say that the external module is styled to match the HR21 DVR and the OTA channels are fully integrated into the guide. 

(Just answering the question)


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Those of us lucky enough to have good antenna reception consider that option, or lack of option, a difference maker. I had the HR20 and loved it and now I love the 722 and love it even more. I get several locals in HD including channel 45 (most of the Suns and Diamondback games), WBHD and PBSHD.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Reaper said:


> How much D12 bandwidth will get eaten up by HD locals?


D12's capacity for providing new HD locals is in addition to the capacity that will will enable DirecTV to broadcast 200 national 24/7 HD channels, so the answer to that one question is.... locals will take away none of the "200 HD channel" capacity. DirecTV already has the capacity to broadcast somewhere near 2000 HD local channels, and D12 will increase that local capacity.

As for what HD channels can be added that actually have HD content... there are at least a dozen of the HBO/SHO/Starz/etc premium channels that have HD versions, but that DirecTV currently only carries in SD. Those all have virtually 100% HD content.


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Not to mention that you can plug an outside antenna into the back of the 722 while "D" makes you buy a second separate device to do this.


Are you aware that most installs are for 722K for Dish? The 722K requires an additional OTA module which must be purchased.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

BNUMM said:


> Are you aware that most installs are for 722K for Dish? The 722K requires an additional OTA module which must be purchased.


Yeah, and those darned things will only allow you to record two OTA channels simultaneously.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The HR20 DVR, which is no longer made, has built-in OTA. The HR21, HR22, and HR23 require an external module to use OTA.


I didn't know what model I had, hence the HR2***. 

But I did get it right after DIRECTV came out with the HR2 series of DVRs (because I absolutely despised the DirecTivo), so it makes sense that it was the first in the series.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

BNUMM said:


> Are you aware that most installs are for 722K for Dish? The 722K requires an additional OTA module which must be purchased.


So both Dish Network and DIRECTV have gone to a strategy of supporting OTA through add on modules. With the investment that both continue to make in HD locals, I think that makes some business sense.

Although I still have my OTA antenna hooked up, I never use it anymore. Although it would be good insurance during an infamous E* carrier dispute.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Reaper said:


> Although it would be good insurance during an infamous E* carrier dispute.


Not to mention that if you are a Dish Network subscriber in the minor markets like the San Francisco Bay Area and if you are within OTA range, you can actually get "PBS" and "The CW" in HD.:sure:


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know that DirecTV really has announced any 3D or not. I've seen some posts around the 'net that suggest they have... but it doesn't look like DirecTV has announced such a thing.


They say so on the front page of their website: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.jsp

And here is the article from DirecTV about it: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P6600006


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Reaper said:


> So both Dish Network and DIRECTV have gone to a strategy of supporting OTA through add on modules. With the investment that both continue to make in HD locals, I think that makes some business sense.
> 
> Although I still have my OTA antenna hooked up, I never use it anymore. Although it would be good insurance during an infamous E* carrier dispute.


You should be able to get several HD channels off air that you cannot get from your Dish connection, including PBS HD and CW HD. Also, the off air signal is not compressed.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

Reaper said:


> I didn't know what model I had, hence the HR2***.
> 
> But I did get it right after DIRECTV came out with the HR2 series of DVRs (because *I absolutely despised the DirecTivo*), so it makes sense that it was the first in the series.


:biggthump
Same here. I much prefer my HR20-100 over my many DirecTV TiVos I have owned and still own and use.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

BNUMM said:


> Are you aware that most installs are for 722K for Dish? The 722K requires an additional OTA module which must be purchased.


Has the 722 been replaced by the 722K thus making the 722 no longer available?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

inazsully said:


> Has the 722 been replaced by the 722K thus making the 722 no longer available?


Its available as is the 622 and the 612. But some availability is more easily available than others.:sure:


----------



## BNUMM (Dec 24, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Has the 722 been replaced by the 722K thus making the 722 no longer available?


I don't know if they are available. Maybe if you ask. I know the retailer I installed for was able to get 622's for a while after the 722K came out. The last few 722K's that I installed they had to get the OTA module.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

DodgerKing said:


> They say so on the front page of their website: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/index.jsp
> 
> And here is the article from DirecTV about it: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P6600006


I noticed that this week... however, at the time I originally asked about it, DirecTV had been denying they had made any such announcements for a 3D channel... so I was wondering what was going on. I guess they were trying not to spoil the CES splash, but it seems like they wouldn't lie and say they knew nothing, then turn around and announce a week later.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't know that DirecTV really has announced any 3D or not. I've seen some posts around the 'net that suggest they have... but it doesn't look like DirecTV has announced such a thing.
> 
> BUT... devil's advocate...
> 
> ...


Actually 3D TV may start up sooner than you imagine. But as you note, we aren't even getting all the HD channels that exist and Dish has a sizable SD only customer base. One has to keep a sense of perspective. After all, Wikipedia notes:


> On September 6, 2001, HDNet was launched by Dallas Mavericks owner and billionaire Mark Cuban and Phillip Garvin from studios in Colorado. In December 2001 and January 2002 HDNet aired exclusive HD coverage of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan with former CNN correspondent Peter Arnett. In February 2002, they originated eight hours of high definition video each day from the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.


I'd be willing to bet that well over half the TV's in the United States can't display HD. Nobody's going to rush to put a 3-D TV requiring special glasses in their kitchen. It'll be a tech curiosity for a few years and maybe it'll evolve into the new TV Ma & Pa will buy, or not. Keeping track of the remote is a problem in many homes. Keeping track of six pairs of glasses?:grin:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Grandude said:


> Won't be worth it in 3D until they introduce 'smellovision' in 2012.


I'm holding out for Touch-O-Vision AKA .......


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Here's a novel idea. Hold on now, this is going to sound pretty radical. How about Dish doing something that makes "D" jump back and say, "how do we stay up with that move". "Dam Dish got us again".


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

inazsully said:


> Here's a novel idea. Hold on now, this is going to sound pretty radical. How about Dish doing something that makes "D" jump back and say, "how do we stay up with that move". "Dam Dish got us again".


You mean like having HD DVRs that work like they are supposed to work. OR having a HD DVR that record 4 events at once? Or such as having an External Hard Drive that adds to the internal instead of replacing it? Or coming out with built in sling? Or having a single wire feed two tuners long before DirecTV, I've had three wires feeding three dual tuner DVRs for quite a while? Or Going back a ways, having a DVR integrated with the receiver first?

Oh wait they did and do have that. I was still using my Dishplayer with the upgraded hard drive until the last card swap, and they replaced my 721 with a 522.
to go along with my two HD DVRs.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

That's all very cool. If you want to know what that all means to the average person out there just look at the subscriber numbers. I love my 722 hooked up to an outside antenna but when I tell friends about it they only want to know if I get the NFL package. I know we offer everything they do except the NFL package and our HD DVR's are better but I just read this week where "D" was rated higher in PQ. We need to hit a home run and I hope we do.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

inazsully said:


> That's all very cool. If you want to know what that all means to the average person out there just look at the subscriber numbers. I love my 722 hooked up to an outside antenna but when I tell friends about it they only want to know if I get the NFL package. *I know we offer everything they do except the NFL package* and our HD DVR's are better but I just read this week where "D" was rated higher in PQ. We need to hit a home run and I hope we do.


There are other differences. Dish doesn't have MLB Extra Innings, Mega March Madness, expanded coverage or tennis & golf majors, NASCAR Hotpass, and expanded UEFA coverage.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

inazsully said:


> That's all very cool. If you want to know what that all means to the average person out there just look at the subscriber numbers. I love my 722 hooked up to an outside antenna but when I tell friends about it they only want to know if I get the NFL package. I know we offer everything they do except the NFL package and our HD DVR's are better but I just read this week where "D" was rated higher in PQ. We need to hit a home run and I hope we do.


I have read that Dish PQ is better. Except for a bunch of Sports packages(I would love the NFL, but having to pay extra for the games in HD is the STUPIDEST THING EVER, Direct has done), that you have to spend $$$ hundreds of dollars more for, lots of more HD PPV's channels to make your think you are getting more instead of less, and inferior DVR's, I just don't see anthing the Direct has that we have to catch up on? 
Until Direct offically launches something, I can see this thread, but right now, both Dish and Direct have lots of Vapor out there.
Dish had more, than Direct has more, than Dish has More, and so on and so on, with the number of HD channels, and they both like Cable, inflate the numbers, with Bogus, HD PPV channels, HD VOD demand channels, and partime Sports Stations. The current Direct TV add with the we are going to have 200 HD Channels, is crazy, there aren't that many HD channels out there.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> I have read that Dish PQ is better. Except for a bunch of Sports packages(I would love the NFL, but having to pay extra for the games in HD is the STUPIDEST THING EVER, Direct has done), that you have to spend $$$ hundreds of dollars more for, lots of more HD PPV's channels to make your think you are getting more instead of less, and inferior DVR's, I just don't see anthing the Direct has that we have to catch up on?
> Until Direct offically launches something, I can see this thread, but right now, both Dish and Direct have lots of Vapor out there.
> Dish had more, than Direct has more, than Dish has More, and so on and so on, with the number of HD channels, and they both like Cable, inflate the numbers, with Bogus, HD PPV channels, HD VOD demand channels, and partime Sports Stations. The current Direct TV add with the we are going to have 200 HD Channels, is crazy, there aren't that many HD channels out there.


As for PQ, everything seems to say Directv's is slightly better. Bottom line, both providers have their pluses & minuses, and people should get whichever fits them.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> As for PQ, everything seems to say Directv's is slightly better. Bottom line, both providers have their pluses & minuses, and get people should get whichever fits them.


*+1*


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> As for PQ, everything seems to say Directv's is slightly better. Bottom line, both providers have their pluses & minuses, and people should get whichever fits them.


Bottom line is that everyone does indeed get what suits them, and all providers, including cable company's have pluses & minuses. But, if we all just accepted that premise there would be no reason for forums and discussions such as these. The fun is discovering information and doing our part to influence our choice (Dish Network, hence this specific forum) to become better than the competition. We of course are happy to let them know how to do that. That is our mission.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> You mean like having HD DVRs that work like they are supposed to work. OR having a HD DVR that record 4 events at once? Or such as having an External Hard Drive that adds to the internal instead of replacing it? Or coming out with built in sling? Or having a single wire feed two tuners long before DirecTV, I've had three wires feeding three dual tuner DVRs for quite a while? Or Going back a ways, having a DVR integrated with the receiver first?
> 
> Oh wait they did and do have that. I was still using my Dishplayer with the upgraded hard drive until the last card swap, and they replaced my 721 with a 522.
> to go along with my two HD DVRs.


Since I'm standard definition I picked the 625( a 522 with a larger HDD) when I came back to Dish from DirecTV.

I am very impressed the 625 can run 2 TVs(in Dual Mode),has 2-120 minute live buffers,PIP(in Single Mode) the Dish installer just changed out my LNB from my old Dish antenna so I could have both tuners come down 1 cable.

If I ever need to reset the DVR it resets in less than 30 seconds.I never had a Dish DVR before when I was with Dish but I am a believer now!.

My Dish on Demand comes down from the satellite gives me a good selection of movies to purchase along with a generous selection of regular cable programs that are free to view.I can record up to 150 hours of programming.

This Dish 625 DVR is just awesome!.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

_"I could have both tuners come down 1 cable"_ - isn't the 625 DiPro type, not DPP ? Then you'll need two cables from LNBF/switch.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

P Smith said:


> _"I could have both tuners come down 1 cable"_ - isn't the 625 DiPro type, not DPP ? Then you'll need two cables from LNBF/switch.


Used to have a switch up there by my Dish 500 a DP-21( I believe) to combine my 500 with my wing dish to go to my Dish 301.Now all cables(1) are going into the LNB with(1) coming out of the LNB going to a separator behind my 625 the front of the LNB cover says DishPro Plus.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

I agree completely. If people would compare Dish DVR's with "D"'s DVR's I think most would choose Dish's hands down. I spent two years with the HR20 and it can't hold a candle to the 722 in any application. The only thing I miss from "D" is the optional lighted remote. That was sweet.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

inazsully said:


> I agree completely. If people would compare Dish DVR's with "D"'s DVR's I think most would choose Dish's hands down. I spent two years with the HR20 and it can't hold a candle to the 722 in any application. The only thing I miss from "D" is the optional lighted remote. That was sweet.


Totally agree I liked my RC64RB.I operated DirecTV's R15,HR10-250(DirecTivo) and their R22-100.

Now last time I checked Dish's 722's only have 2-60 minute live buffers? don't know about OTA buffers? while DirecTV's HR2x&R22s have 2-90 minute live buffers.

If Dish would ask me what can they do for their HDDVRs to make them better?

I would suggest for Dish to make the ViP's live buffers the same as their 625.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Totally agree I liked my RC64RB.I operated DirecTV's R15,HR10-250(DirecTivo) and their R22-100.
> 
> Now last time I checked Dish's 722's only have 2-60 minute live buffers? don't know about OTA buffers? while DirecTV's HR2x&R22s have 2-90 minute live buffers.
> 
> ...


Longer Buffers would be cool, Each OTA buffer is 60min's as well, so if you have a K, then you have 4-60 min buffers, non K you have 3-60 min buffers if you use OTA. Not sure why 60 was the magic number, programmers what can you say about them.
Direct does "now" have 2 buffers, but I wouldn't exactly call something you have to active as a live buffer. Replay is a good work around and better than recording the 2nd tuner like Direct used to have to do, but its still not DLB, and nor is it as simple and easy to use as a single button swap.
I can live with the 60 min x 3-4 Tuners before I could live with Directs Remote control, and that STUPID bong evertime you hit a button, but aren't in the proper part of the system.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> Each OTA buffer is 60min's as well, so if you have a K, then you have 4-60 min buffers, non K you have 3-60 min buffers if you use OTA.


I can't speak to the K receiver (though I suspect you are wrong there too), but the non-K does not buffer all 3 available tuners at the same time.

While it can buffer any of the available tuners... it only buffers 2 at a time. The two tuners that are being buffered are the ones you'd be able to watch live (either PiP on single mode, or TV1 and TV2 on dual mode).

It most definitely is not buffering the tuner that is not being used to actively watch something.

You can, however, record on all available tuners (3 or 4 depending on the receiver) at the same time. But you don't have all of them being buffered for 60 minutes each at all times.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Longer Buffers would be cool, Each OTA buffer is 60min's as well, so if you have a K, then you have 4-60 min buffers, non K you have 3-60 min buffers if you use OTA. Not sure why 60 was the magic number, programmers what can you say about them.
> Direct does "now" have 2 buffers, but I wouldn't exactly call something you have to active as a live buffer. Replay is a good work around and better than recording the 2nd tuner like Direct used to have to do, but its still not DLB, and nor is it as simple and easy to use as a single button swap.
> I can live with the 60 min x 3-4 Tuners before I could live with Directs Remote control, and that STUPID bong evertime you hit a button, but aren't in the proper part of the system.


Have to agree with you there about DLB my 625's live buffers come on when I turn it on(out of standby) and off when I go into standby quite abit better than DirecTV's 1 constant live buffer and you have to always activate their DoublePlay feature and my 625 when in standby is very quite even though the fan(s?) run constantly.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> He may have said that, but my 720p Pany Plasma is going on 7 years and I still have seen no reason to upgrade to 1080p because some of what I watch still isn't in HD and the rest is in 1080i or 720p.
> 
> "In 3-5 years 20% _or more_ of TV's _sold_ will be 3D" likely will be accurate.
> 
> ...


The 3D channels probably have 2 hours of programs a week, like early television. If the economy goes south they can forget about 3D.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> The 3D channels probably have 2 hours of programs a week, like early television. If the economy goes south they can forget about 3D.


If the economy goes south? I hope it's not exactly north right now. Unlike early television, millions of dollars are being pumped into 3D technology by company's like Panasonic, Sony, and ABC (ESPN) and whoever owns the Discovery Channel not to mention what's going on right now in Europe and Japan. We, the public, really won't have a lot to say about the future of 3D. If they shove it down our throats we'll pretty much have to take it in the long run. What are we going to do, stop watching TV? Too many sports fans to let that happen. FYI, Samsung just announced that three new 3D models are in full production, and Vizio will start shipping three new 3D models in August, one of which is a 72" 480hz with a MSRP of $3499.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

inazsully said:


> If the economy goes south? I hope it's not exactly north right now. Unlike early television, millions of dollars are being pumped into 3D technology by company's like Panasonic, Sony, and ABC (ESPN) and whoever owns the Discovery Channel not to mention what's going on right now in Europe and Japan. We, the public, really won't have a lot to say about the future of 3D. If they shove it down our throats we'll pretty much have to take it in the long run. What are we going to do, stop watching TV? Too many sports fans to let that happen. FYI, Samsung just announced that three new 3D models are in full production, and Vizio will start shipping three new 3D models in August, one of which is a 72" 480hz with a MSRP of $3499.


I'm perfectly happy with HD. Heck half of Dish's customers still have SD.


----------



## prm1177 (Aug 21, 2007)

3D transmissions take anywhere from 50 to 70% more bandwidth than conventional HD not to mention some drop the vertical resolution by 50%. We will have to see how the public responds, but I suspect for the time being this will remain the province of a couple of specialty channels and pay per view where they can add or remove offerings to adjust to the bandwidth needed.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

I wonder what producing 3D content will cost.

Will a 2D TV even be able to display 3D? Or do they have some magic trick such as when they tinkered with the old B&W to add color to it so it would stay compatible.

Also 3D in the home seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. If it were True 3D where I could walk around the image and change my point of view, then I'd be interested.

Remember CATV and what it was originally aimed at solving? Or
When HBO was the Movie channel for several hours a day and signed off at night? Or
When Even stations in NYC,NY signed off at night. Or MTV actually playing music?

Anyway
Cheers


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

TBoneit said:


> I wonder what producing 3D content will cost.
> 
> Will a 2D TV even be able to display 3D? Or do they have some magic trick such as when they tinkered with the old B&W to add color to it so it would stay compatible.
> 
> ...


Not sure how DirecTv's will work, but the standard adopted by Blu-Ray allows you to display as 2d. The additional 3d info is suppose to only add 50%, rather than 100%, to the video stream.

Dish at this point hasn't said anything about supporting 3d. Although I am sure they are looking at what it would take to support it if 3d really takes off.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I would guess that any display could show 3D content but you would need an outboard box to drive the glasses (or maybe a USB hub?).

Sounds a little gimmicky (like the old color filters for B/W TVs) and working out the timing would be interesting.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> I'm perfectly happy with HD. Heck half of Dish's customers still have SD.


Like me!.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> Like me!.


Sad but true. That's OK. I remember growing up with black and white TV. I thought that was just fine at the time.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> 3D is a fad that comes and goes.
> 
> Right now it is coming, it will go soon and we can all laugh about how the silly marketing firms tried to sell us another boondoggle.
> 
> Until 3D is viewable without glasses, it will never sell.


The CEA said today the total 3D sets shipped this year will only be 1.3 million down from 4 million. It's fizzling already

Source:

http://www.multichannel.com/article/450962-CEA_Cuts_3DTV_Forecast_For_2010.php


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Paul Secic said:


> The CEA said today the total 3D sets shipped this year will only be 1.3 million down from 4 million. It's fizzling already
> 
> Source:
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/450962-CEA_Cuts_3DTV_Forecast_For_2010.php


Really a change in the definition. Which is somewhat better for the consumer who might buy a TV that really isn't built to support 3D and think he was ready to go.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

ENgadget this morning is following the progress of DirecTV's new H24 HD DVR. They are talking over my head so maybe someone else can check it out and elaborate on what it's all about. It sounds like it is way more than just a HD DVR though. It better have at least 3 tuners and a 1TB hard drive.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

inazsully said:


> ENgadget this morning is following the progress of DirecTV's new H24 HD DVR. They are talking over my head so maybe someone else can check it out and elaborate on what it's all about. It sounds like it is way more than just a HD DVR though. It better have at least 3 tuners and a 1TB hard drive.


It's not a DVR...It's a regular HD receiver that's much faster & has built in DECA for MRV over coax. Check here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=173316

The HR24 will come out shortly after probably.


----------



## Michael1 (Feb 24, 2010)

harsh said:


> I would guess that any display could show 3D content but you would need an outboard box to drive the glasses (or maybe a USB hub?).
> 
> Sounds a little gimmicky (like the old color filters for B/W TVs) and working out the timing would be interesting.


Today's TVs don't have a high enough screen refresh rate to support 3D. The 3D TVs have a refresh rate of 120 Hz, so that each eye gets a 60 Hz refresh to eliminate flicker. A standard TV has a refresh rate of 60 Hz.

Michael


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Michael1 said:


> Today's TVs don't have a high enough screen refresh rate to support 3D. The 3D TVs have a refresh rate of 120 Hz, so that each eye gets a 60 Hz refresh to eliminate flicker. A standard TV has a refresh rate of 60 Hz.


I looked a little further into this and found that both 120fps and 48fps are possible with the Blu-ray 3D standard. I think the chances are excellent that satellite and cable will use the 48fps rate.

This being the case, it would appear that most regular TVs aren't going to be able to pull it off. As such, 3D is going to have a extremely tough time making it into our living rooms.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

harsh said:


> I looked a little further into this and found that both 120fps and 48fps are possible with the Blu-ray 3D standard. I think the chances are excellent that satellite and cable will use the 48fps rate.
> 
> This being the case, it would appear that most regular TVs aren't going to be able to pull it off. As such, 3D is going to have a extremely tough time making it into our living rooms.


Plasmas should have no problem, hence Panasonic's leading role in 3D displays. Vizio's newest offerings in August will have a 480hz refresh rate and all the Sony and Samsung displays will be rated at least 240hz.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

DirecTv has released it's new Hr24 HD DVR and it basically adds quite a bit of operating speed over the current offerings. They have also included a 500GB hard drive. That's about it. Considering the new drive replaces a 4 year old design I'd say "D" isn't exactly leaping into the future with this machine. Still only two tuners which to me makes the original 722 the cream of the crop.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inazsully said:


> Plasmas should have no problem, hence Panasonic's leading role in 3D displays.


The display technology can't overcome the inability of the TV's internal circuitry to process an input stream with an oddball frame rate.

If you'll recall, many sets can't handle 24fps so you can't expect them to deal with 48fps or 240fps. This certainly includes Panasonic plasmas.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

What good does 480hz or even 240hz refresh rate do if the source is 60hz or 48hz or even 120hz.

It's all BS to sell something bigger and better, even if it is unnecessary.


----------



## kucharsk (Sep 20, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> What good does 480hz or even 240hz refresh rate do if the source is 60hz or 48hz or even 120hz.
> 
> It's all BS to sell something bigger and better, even if it is unnecessary.


As has been seen with current sets, a refresh rate greater than the frame rate allows the display to synthesize frames in between source frames, providing smoother motion than would otherwise be seen.

Depending on your point of view this can be seen as a positive or as an artificial artifact.

Personally I fall into the latter camp as the technique makes film look like HD video.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

harsh said:


> The display technology can't overcome the inability of the TV's internal circuitry to process an input stream with an oddball frame rate.
> 
> If you'll recall, many sets can't handle 24fps so you can't expect them to deal with 48fps or 240fps. This certainly includes Panasonic plasmas.


Can't argue against your point but the 3D Pannys have been very well received so far in limited reviews. The next 12 months will be very interesting in the TV market. Next year at this time I wonder what kind of content will we see?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inazsully said:


> Can't argue against your point but the 3D Pannys have been very well received so far in limited reviews.


As are the 3D Samsungs. It comes down to what you have to compare to in the marketplace.


> The next 12 months will be very interesting in the TV market. Next year at this time I wonder what kind of content will we see?


I'm guessing that there will be a handful of animated films and a couple of thrill ride type programs. There have been promises of sports programs, but I don't see the attraction. Like IMAX, it is just too expensive and complicated to shoot for something where the focus is on a single ball/puck/place-change.


----------



## inazsully (Oct 3, 2006)

harsh said:


> As are the 3D Samsungs. It comes down to what you have to compare to in the marketplace.I'm guessing that there will be a handful of animated films and a couple of thrill ride type programs. There have been promises of sports programs, but I don't see the attraction. Like IMAX, it is just too expensive and complicated to shoot for something where the focus is on a single ball/puck/place-change.


But, unlike IMAX, a whole bunch of big ass companies are spending multi-millions (maybe billions) of dollars in the US and the rest of the world on promoting 3D. Many of these companies are linked together at some spot in the road, like Sony and ABC and Disney and ESPN etc. If ABC say's they are going to shoot in 3D then shoot it they will.


----------

