# 1080i 720p switch in future software...



## space86 (May 4, 2007)

will there be a future software update on the VIP 722 so that the box
would switch to 1080i or 720p, based on what the channel broadcasts
in, so it would be 720p on ESPN and then 1080i when you switch to CNN?


----------



## lujan (Feb 10, 2004)

space86 said:


> will there be a future software update on the VIP 722 so that the box
> would switch to 1080i or 720p, based on what the channel broadcasts
> in, so it would be 720p on ESPN and then 1080i when you switch to CNN?


That's called native resolution passthrough which we've been trying to get on the E* receivers since the HD receivers first came out. No luck so far...


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

lujan said:


> That's called native resolution passthrough which we've been trying to get on the E* receivers since the HD receivers first came out. No luck so far...


They did, at one point, say that this was coming soon. But that was several years ago. It may still be in the works, or it may have been abandoned, only Dish software designers know for sure.


----------



## nyelton (Sep 4, 2008)

lujan said:


> That's called native resolution passthrough which we've been trying to get on the E* receivers since the HD receivers first came out. No luck so far...


I'm looking into dish network right now. This sounds like a serious limitation. Is there at least a 1080p option for owners of 1080p TVs? Otherwise, if you select a 1080i output mode, 720p programs would have to be scaled and interlaced by the satellite receiver, and then deinterlaced by the TV--sort of defeats the purpose of a progressive signal.

Even with a 720p TV, you're probably scaling twice for a 1080i channel, since most TVs are actually something like 1366x768. First the receiver would deinterlace and scale to 1280x720, then the TV has to scale back up to 1366x768.


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

IMO the only place a native-pass-through is worth a damn is when the display device is not a fixed-pixel device, ie. a CRT.

I know everyone here keeps crying for it, but I've tried it on my brother-in-law's D* box with a Samsung LCD flat panel, and to be honest it sucks. Every time you switch channels the TV has to re-sync to the new frequency, which is a horrible viewing experience, and doesn't make a damn bit of sense to do since the display is fixed pixel anyway. The image is scaled in the TV to fit the display. Scale in the Satellite box, or scale in the TV? Either way it's scaled.

Makes more sense to me to scale it in the Satellite box, then send out in the native resolution of the display device so it doesn't have to re-sync every time a channel is changed.

I think for 99% of viewers native pass-through is overrated.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

ZBoomer said:


> IMO the only place a native-pass-through is worth a damn is when the display device is not a fixed-pixel device, ie. a CRT.
> 
> I know everyone here keeps crying for it, but I've tried it on my brother-in-law's D* box with a Samsung LCD flat panel, and to be honest it sucks. Every time you switch channels the TV has to re-sync to the new frequency, which is a horrible viewing experience, and doesn't make a damn bit of sense to do since the display is fixed pixel anyway. The image is scaled in the TV to fit the display. Scale in the Satellite box, or scale in the TV? Either way it's scaled.
> 
> ...


no, if the STB outputted 1080p @ 60FPS then I would agree .

Currenlty If you have a 1080p tv and select 1080i output then you lose half the frames of a 720p signal. Else if you select 720p output then you lose the resolution of 1080i signals.

edit: see below for correct explanation


----------



## sotti (Jan 6, 2006)

Jeff_DML said:


> no, if the STB outputted 1080p @ 60FPS then I would agree .
> 
> Currenlty If you have a 1080p tv and select 1080i output then you lose half the frames of a 720p signal. Else if you select 720p output then you lose the resolution of 1080i signals.


well you don't lose half the frames at 720p, you do lose about 1/4 of the resolution

both 1080i and 720p contain 60 fields a second.

720p in 1080i ends up that each of the 60 fields in 720p is passed at 1920x540, so if the TV does a basic bob deinterlace you lose about 25% of the resolution you'd get from native 720p

Just to sumarize:
720p @ 1080i = 25% lost pixels
1080i @ 720p = 33% lost pixels

So basically everyone is hosed except for DLP owners with honest 1280x720 sets or CRT owners with 1080i sets. Everyone else 1368x768 (lcd plasma) and all 1080p owners are dealing with signifigantly reduced image quality for non native programs.

I'd love to get a box that just had native 1080p out. The current 1080p out only works for 1080p sources. I don't think our 622/722's have enough horse power to do a decent 1080i->1080p pixel adaptive de-interlace.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

sotti said:


> well you don't lose half the frames at 720p, you do lose about 1/4 of the resolution
> 
> both 1080i and 720p contain 60 fields a second.
> 
> ...


yeah, thanks for the correction, didnt think it through either way you still lose something without native output


----------



## Jeff_DML (Feb 12, 2008)

edit: not that simple


----------



## ZBoomer (Feb 21, 2008)

You know, all this math is great, I get it, and I used to care, but I've learned to use the one instrument that means the most - my eyes.

I have one of the best TV's on the market, a 60" 1080p Pioneer Kuro Plasma, and 20/10 vision, and I've did a lot of messing around with outputting 1080i or 720p on my 622 and 722, and 99% of the time, it LOOKS IDENTICAL, or so close you'd never see a difference without a test pattern.

I'm a big football fan, and am frequently switching networks who do 1080i and 720p, and I tell you, its pretty much impossible to see a difference regardless of the output setting on the 722. For a while I kept setting the 722 on 720p when watching Fox, but after I got past the fact that it just didn't look better, I stopped doing it.

The only time an improvement is noticeable is on a blu-ray disk, and true 1080p, and less compression. It looks obviously better, in many ways.

The one area I do see a difference out of the 722 is when viewing split screen, which I also do a lot. When set to 1080i, the half-sized screens are sharper, because the sources are squeezed down, and with 1080i there is more resolution available to show the small screens. In split screen mode, 1080i definitely looks better than 720p.

So, we can play the math, wish for native pass-through, blah blah, but like I said I've used a D* box with native pass-through for a week, and I hated it with a fixed-pixel display. The image looks the same, and it adds several seconds to each channel change as the TV re-syncs. I'll pass.

I could easily think of 10 features I'd rather have first on my DVR than that feature.


----------



## mhowie (Sep 30, 2006)

sotti said:


> Just to sumarize:
> 720p @ 1080i = 25% lost pixels
> 1080i @ 720p = 33% lost pixels


So...and forgetting ZBoomer's comments above addressing the subjective side of things (which are probably spot on!)...

Does it make sense from a technical standpoint to continue selecting the correct output signal (i.e., 720p for Fox, ABC, ESPN and 1080i for the rest of the HD channels)?

Is this more important if one has a 720p set (vs. 1080p)?

If one has a 768p set (which I believe many of the advertised 720p sets actually are), does it make any difference?

If one has a high-end TV (e.g., ZBoomer's Kuro, a Panasonic plasma, etc.), wouldn't one want the scaling to occur within the TV and not in the Dish box which possesses a (presumably) cheaper scaler?

If one of the two outputs were to be selected (getting away from constantly changing in order to align with the native channel output) is there a better choice for a 720p set? A 768p set? A 1080i set? A 1080p set?

Thanks,


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

nyelton said:


> I'm looking into dish network right now. This sounds like a serious limitation. Is there at least a 1080p option for owners of 1080p TVs? Otherwise, if you select a 1080i output mode, 720p programs would have to be scaled and interlaced by the satellite receiver, and then deinterlaced by the TV--sort of defeats the purpose of a progressive signal.


Generally - pick the resolution that looks best on your TV. If your TV "prefers" 1080i use a 1080i output on the DISH receiver.

If having "native reconstruction" on a receiver is important check to see how well other receivers are doing it before turning it into a serious limitation. Do the competing receivers have it? How well does it work? Does it cause glitches for the transition between signals? What happens when the TV can't accept the "native" signal?

We know that signals on EVERY distribution method are compressed and manipulated to fit bandwidth so the idea of "pass through" isn't really the truth. When offered it is a "reconstruction".

As for a 1080p output ... DISH outputs 1080p content in 1080p but most content is only 1080i, 720p or less so it isn't a normal output setting on their receivers. Until there are actual 1080p live channels I would not expect a 1080p output as a standard selection.


----------



## DishSubLA (Apr 9, 2006)

If one has one of the top well-regarded TV's (good manufactures such as Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic) they can handle just about whatever the Dish box sends out and do a really good job scaling because I too have experimented for a long time, with Dish and Tivo (who does have a native resolution option) and I can't see one bit of difference between all the various resolution settings. I chalk it up to the high quality scaler in the Sharp Aquos and the Sony 46" TV.

Like everything, it is still subjective, but the notion of the best PQ is NOT absolute. It really is relative--to each person's set of eyes and preferences.


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

DishSubLA said:


> Like everything, it is still subjective, but the notion of the best PQ is NOT absolute. It really is relative--to each person's set of eyes and preferences.


And prejudices. There seems to also be a placebo effect. People who expect 1080i to be better than 720p will see it that way.


----------



## mercator1 (Sep 11, 2008)

Also, if you want the best picture, get an OTA antenna and run that signal directly into your TV. When I switch between an HD sporting event on CBS coming through Dish vs. OTA from my local affiliate, then the OTA is vastly superior in both sound and video quality. The compression from the bird really takes its toll.


----------



## sotti (Jan 6, 2006)

DishSubLA said:


> If one has one of the top well-regarded TV's (good manufactures such as Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic) they can handle just about whatever the Dish box sends out and do a really good job scaling because I too have experimented for a long time, with Dish and Tivo (who does have a native resolution option) and I can't see one bit of difference between all the various resolution settings. I chalk it up to the high quality scaler in the Sharp Aquos and the Sony 46" TV.
> 
> Like everything, it is still subjective, but the notion of the best PQ is NOT absolute. It really is relative--to each person's set of eyes and preferences.


it's really not that subjective.

720p handles fast motion better.

1080i has better fine detail.

720p in 1080i for say lost with is actually a 24p show your TV will do a very good job recovering all of the content. But for a sporting event or any real 60fps content you are going to lose some content, how much visual fidelity is lost is largely effected by the de-interlacer of your 1080p set (or video scaler if you're lucky enough to have one).

1080i in 720p, While there is no lossless scenario like 720p content that is 24fps for the converse, this is a straight resize issue. some detail will be lost and then if it's scaled back up you'll loose a little more sharpness.

These are not subjective statements. Quantifing those differences is subjective. If I take two pictures and one of them I reduce 20% in photo shop, then return to it's native size you aren't going to say it looks 20% worse.


----------

