# direct tv 1080p format outrage (1080p24 vs. 1080p60)



## amz11 (Nov 9, 2006)

I just saw one of Direct TV's 1080p VOD ads and attempted to reset the format setting on my Sony KDS r50xbr1 tv, given that it's 1080p capable, to receive the format. Of course there's a small technicality, it can only receive 1080p60, not the 1080p24 format direct TV broadcasts in.

*Could someone please explain a few things to me:
*
1. How does Direct TV send a format that, to my knowledge, only a very small % of 1080p TV's can receive?

2. TV manufacturers have for years sold 1080p as "1080p", not "1080p24", nor "1080p60". Is this the manufacturers fault? If so don't they realize that there is no way an average consumer anticipates format nuances as minuscule as this? Seriously?

3. I understand the "advantage" (if you can call it that) is that 1080p24 takes less bandwidth to transmit. Does Direct TV plan this as a first stage roll out, with 1080p60 to come later?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Battlezone said it best:



BattleZone said:


> First of all, you can view 1080p VOD content on ANY TV, even a 1930's B&W TV if you have one working. You just won't be able to view it in 1080p.
> 
> Film is shot at 24 frames per second. When film content is transferred to HD, it is almost always encoded at 1080/24p. This is true of Blu-Ray movies, DirecTV, and Dish "1080p".
> 
> ...


So, to answer your questions:

1. The majority of displays since 2006 do support 1080p/24
2. Yes, it's the manufacturers fault. Just like EDTV was and just like making millions of HDTV's with component and no HDMI was.
3. I doubt you'll see 1080p/60


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

amz11 said:


> I just saw one of Direct TV's 1080p VOD ads and attempted to reset the format setting on my Sony KDS r50xbr1 tv, given that it's 1080p capable, to receive the format. Of course there's a small technicality, it can only receive 1080p60, not the 1080p24 format direct TV broadcasts in.
> 
> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:
> *
> ...


they will need new boxes to do 1080p60.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

It mainly comes down to the fact that, for movies, 1080p24 is just better. And since most if not all of the 1080p VODs are movies it is a logical choice.

Also:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1015


----------



## DiSH Defector (May 4, 2008)

amz11 said:


> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:
> *
> 1. How does Direct TV send a format that, to my knowledge, only a very small % of 1080p TV's can receive?
> 
> ...


1. 1080p/24 was chosen because that's the 1080p format most movies are produced in.

2. This is the same reason some consumers also end up with "new" HDTVs that aren't HDCP compatible. There's plenty of blame to go around between manufacturers, retailers, sales people, consumers, etc. The Brady Bunch taught us the rule of _caveat emptor_, let the buyer beware. Honestly if you're paying over $1000 for something, you should be asking a lot of questions, especially "why is THIS 42" LCD twice the price of THAT one?", or "what do all those numbers next to the model number mean?" And it's the retailers responsibility to train sales people to educate customers on these nuances.

3. There is a plan to eventually have compatibility for 1080p/60 and 1080p/120, but no telling when.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

amz11 said:


> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:*


 "Simple answer": You got screwed by Sony just like me, as they never listed 1080p/60 as the 1080p. Newer Sonys list 1080p/60 & 1080p/24.


----------



## thomas_d92 (Nov 29, 2004)

Yuo can add a video processor like I have with the DVDO Edge and change the output from your D receiver to 1080p60 out from the Edge.


----------



## Barmat (Aug 27, 2006)

Wow EDTV, that should be considered a crime. Early adopters get the shaft sometimes.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Simple answer: 1080p/24 is the standard. That's what Bluray is in. Pretty much every 1080p TV in the last 2-3 years supports 24. If yours doesn't sorry, but you need a new TV. As stated above, Sony screwed a lot of people. I know when I recently got my 1080p set I made sure it supported 24 input, even if all it does is a conversion to 60. At least I can take the 24 input.

Good luck.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Sony screwed a lot of people.


No more than Samsung, Panasonic, Pioneer, Toshiba, Sharp, Mitsubishi, etc. As I said in my quoted post, it was widely known since around 2000 that 1080/24p was going to be the format for HD disc media (what eventually became HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). All of the TV manufacturers were part of either one group or the other (many were in both).

It was a simple matter of money. With no source devices to provide 1080/24p content, none of the manufactures decided to spend the money to add 1080/24p support until the first "full HD" source device was released in 2006 (Toshiba's first HD-DVD player). Ironically, Toshiba didn't support 1080/24p until their 2007 models, and Panasonc didn't until 2008. And I'm just talking the ability to accept 1080/24p input signals. Correctly displaying such signals at a multiple-of-24 refresh rate is something many 2009 models don't do.

ALL of the manufacturers were guilty.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BattleZone said:


> ALL of the manufacturers were guilty.


 OK "they all screwed us", but Sony was the one that "got me"


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

BattleZone said:


> No more than Samsung, Panasonic, Pioneer, Toshiba, Sharp, Mitsubishi, etc.


Yep. My 2006 Samsung HL-S series DLP is 1080p, but only 1080p/60. 1080p On Demand programming looks great . . . in 1080i/60 and deinterlaced by the TV.

By contrast, my little 32" Samsung LCD in the master bedroom is of more recent vintage (2008) and accepts 1080p/24, 1080p/30 and 1080p/60 inputs just fine, despite being a native 720p set.

Technology and standards are ever-evolving . . . pick a price point, jump on, and don't look back.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> ALL of the manufacturers were guilty.


Very true.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Couple of questions...

1. Is there an upcharge for PPVs in 1080p over 1080i from DirecTV?

2. Does DirecTV make it clear or offer a test so that people will know whether or not their set supports the format that is being sold?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Couple of questions...
> 
> 1. Is there an upcharge for PPVs in 1080p over 1080i from DirecTV?
> 
> 2. Does DirecTV make it clear or offer a test so that people will know whether or not their set supports the format that is being sold?


Can't answer #1 since I don't do PPV.

As for #2, if you select 1080p in the available resolutions in the HDTV Resolutions menu, your system is tested to see if it works or not. If 1080p is not available, 1080p programming is still displayed, but in 1080i.

I would venture to say, however, that the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a double-blind test unless they were specifically told what to look for and under what circumstances the difference might be noticeable.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

You would be able to tell the difference if you watched scenes involving motion and really knew what to look for.

Other than the motion differences regarding 24p--exactly how much picture information wise does a 1080p/24 VOD movie on DirecTV differ from that same movie ordinarily be shown on 1080i on say HBO or Showtime from DirecTV?


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Artwood said:


> You would be able to tell the difference if you watched scenes involving motion and really knew what to look for.


Indeed.

However, since a great deal of television (most perhaps) for a great deal of viewers (most again maybe?) is video based, I think they won't even know what to look for unless told.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

i have a sony 1080p24 120hz with "motionflow"....it gives movies a smoother flow so they have more of a "real" look to them more like your looking out a window rather than just watching a film.....but probably 80% of people dont like it because they want a movie to look like a movie ?....but i like it.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Another factor is that 1080p60 would require slightly more than twice the bandwidth of 1080p24 (whether via satellite or On Demand) and would buy nothing, quality-wise, since most of the available material (film) starts out at 24 fps.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

amz11 said:


> I just saw one of Direct TV's 1080p VOD ads and attempted to reset the format setting on my Sony KDS r50xbr1 tv, given that it's 1080p capable, to receive the format. Of course there's a small technicality, it can only receive 1080p60, not the 1080p24 format direct TV broadcasts in.
> 
> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:
> *
> ...


1. 1080p is the new hottness. Since Dish has it, DirecTV needs to, just to prevent A is better than B advertising. Movies are usually shot in 24 fps. So 1080p/24 is the natural resolution for film-based movies.

2. This is mostly TV manufacturers fault.

3. The chips used in the HR2x DVRs cannot upconvert to 1080p/60. However, even if they could, you would not get more information than watching a 24fps source material at 1080p/60. The DVR would simply repeat identical frames more (odd frames 3 times, even frames 2 times), to up convert 1080p/24 to 1080p/60.

If you are connected via HDMI, which is a must for 1080p due to DRM issues, if and only if you are watching 24 fps sourced material at 1080i will be bit for bit identical as 1080p/60 if your TV correctly processes the data stream. The DVR will take the 1080p/24 material and interlace it and repeats fields. Your TV deinterlaces the information correctly and repeats frames and voila, you are watching data identical to 1080p/60.

Now for 60 fps sourced material, such as video-based material, it cannot be downconverted to 1080p/24, and you are limited to 1080i. In this scenario, you would lose half your data. However, the doubling in bandwidth needed for 60fps source material probably ensures that satellite providers never transmit 1080p/60 natively over their satellites.

I have heard that the 1080p/24 PPVs are specially compressed off-line using multipass compression, so they should look visibly superior to the same movie on a 1080i PPV channel.

Watching movies in 1080p/24 on a supporting TV gives a slightly superior viewing experience. Since to convert 24 fps to 60 fps requires repeating one frame three times and the next twice, it causes a mild effect called judder. Fast pans and scrolling end credits will show judder due to the extra repeating frame. Most 1080p/24 TV sets internally repeat frames even number of times, so all frames are seen the same number of times. This causes smoother scrolling credits and pans. It is subtle, but can be seen if you look. This requires a panel that can display at a multiple of 24 fps and 60 fps, which is more expensive to create. Some lower cost sets claim 1080p/24 input capabiliy, but have 60 fps panels and do the odd/even frame repeat internally, which brings the judder back.

Hope this helps.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Another factor is that 1080p60 would require slightly more than twice the bandwidth of 1080p24 (whether via satellite or On Demand) and would buy nothing, quality-wise, since most of the available material (film) starts out at 24 fps.


I know you know this, but for other readers, we need to be careful of describing source encoding resolution and data rates versus what the DVR sends to the TV.

Your remark is that 1080p/60 original source material would take twice 1080p/24, which is 100 percent true.

However, the DVR can scale almost any souce to any supported resolution. If the DVRs supported 1080p/60 output then any source resolution could be upscaled to 1080p/60 and all it would represent is whether the data is processed in the DVR and a much higher data rate sent over HDMI to the TV, or the unprocessed source data is sent to the TV and then processed in the TV.

Some people will get confused that the higher data rate over HDMI must mean a better picture, when it may not, especially if the TV has superior image processing than the DVR and a lower resoluton source was used.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

One very, very important comment: 1080p24 IS a required standard for 1080p TVs. Any TV that claims 1080p and does not support 1080p24 is definitely out of compliance. (And many, many TVs were not compliant, unfortunately.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Correct. Just like they can't tell the difference between a 5x7 5mp and 10mp photo. It's mostly all advertising hype. Bigger is better. More is better. The American way.  And look where it's got us.



LameLefty said:


> Can't answer #1 since I don't do PPV.
> 
> As for #2, if you select 1080p in the available resolutions in the HDTV Resolutions menu, your system is tested to see if it works or not. If 1080p is not available, 1080p programming is still displayed, but in 1080i.
> 
> I would venture to say, however, that the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a double-blind test unless they were specifically told what to look for and under what circumstances the difference might be noticeable.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

TBlazer07 said:


> Correct. Just like they can't tell the difference between a 5x7 5mp and 10mp photo. It's mostly all advertising hype. Bigger is better. More is better. The American way.  And look where it's got us.


The sad thing is that 10 mp camera is often times worse off. Since the sensor sizes stay the same or get smaller it means the information in the picture is noisier and noisier and requires a bunch of filtering to remove it. Doesn't mean a whole lot to capture more information if the information is junk.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Exactly, but I didn't want to go THAT far off topic! :lol:


evan_s said:


> The sad thing is that 10 mp camera is often times worse off. Since the sensor sizes stay the same or get smaller it means the information in the picture is noisier and noisier and requires a bunch of filtering to remove it. Doesn't mean a whole lot to capture more information if the information is junk.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I may be wrong and I don't know the exact year but I think that Pioneer plasma offered 1080p/24 refreshed at a perfect multiple of 24--at 72--first.

I caution people to think twice about a set that will accept 1080p/24 and display it at 48.

There may not be judder in such a set--but one may be able to discern flicker.

Most movie theaters refresh at 48.

There's a reason why they call movies--"Flicks".


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

amz11 said:


> I just saw one of Direct TV's 1080p VOD ads and attempted to reset the format setting on my Sony KDS r50xbr1 tv, given that it's 1080p capable, to receive the format. Of course there's a small technicality, it can only receive 1080p60, not the 1080p24 format direct TV broadcasts in.
> 
> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:
> *
> ...


I think others have mostly already answered your questions.. but let me put it another way.. Sony knows better than anyone how to be stupid... They knew bluray would support 1080P24 native, and didn't make all their 1080p tv's capable of doing 1080p.. think about that for a minute...


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I think others have mostly already answered your questions.. but let me put it another way.. Sony knows better than anyone how to be stupid... They knew bluray would support 1080P24 native, and didn't make all their 1080p tv's capable of doing 1080p.. think about that for a minute...


True of EVERY manufacturer. Have you seen the member list of the Blu-Ray Disc Association? How about Toshiba and HD-DVD? HD-DVD was released a year before Blu-Ray, and Toshiba's TVs didn't support 1080/24p until 2 years later.

This isn't a manufacturer-specific issue, folks. They ALL did it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

V'ger;2070071 said:


> ... Watching movies in 1080p/24 on a supporting TV gives a slightly superior viewing experience. Since to convert 24 fps to 60 fps requires repeating one frame three times and the next twice, it causes a mild effect called judder. *Fast pans and scrolling end credits will show judder due to the extra repeating frame.* Most 1080p/24 TV sets internally repeat frames even number of times, so all frames are seen the same number of times. This causes smoother scrolling credits and pans. It is subtle, but can be seen if you look. This requires a panel that can display at a multiple of 24 fps and 60 fps, which is more expensive to create. Some lower cost sets claim 1080p/24 input capabiliy, but have 60 fps panels and do the odd/even frame repeat internally, which brings the judder back.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Actually I tend to notice film judder, or a slight jerkiness in motion, on slow camera pans during some film scenes and also slow moving credits as you said. Very good and informative post in all others respects though.

Thanks


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

amz11 said:


> I just saw one of Direct TV's 1080p VOD ads and attempted to reset the format setting on my Sony KDS r50xbr1 tv, given that it's 1080p capable, to receive the format. Of course there's a small technicality, it can only receive 1080p60, not the 1080p24 format direct TV broadcasts in.
> 
> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:
> *
> ...


First let me say, excellent first post, and :welcome_s

#1 there is a huge assumption here, that 60hz is a standard, when it is not, 24hz (and 30 hz) is if you consider the ATSC standard for broadcast OTA (considering progressive frames here only). While the TV may not be compatible, it is the manufacturer who didn't implement the standard that neglected to do a standard not DirecTV who implement a standard. Also, considering the film industry uses 24 frames per second on most films, it makes sense to keep that format. Also, from a bandwidth perspective, it is the least costly. Since a TV manufacturer didn't implement it doesn't make DirecTV liable to implement it.

#2 excellent questions! I think it comes down to how this all played out...there are those trying to be quick to the market and don't implement everything they could which they will spiral into their products when they are able. I think this is a natural progression of the way things panned out. Myself, I have a Sharp set that has a screen size of 1920 x 1080 pixels (times three actually, one pixel for each primary color) but it will not accept 1080p at all, it never got implemented with in that set. Follow on products from Sharp do have it however...

#3 I don't know their plans, but if it were me I'd leave it at 24 Hz, mainly due to all the things I put in my answer to #1 above.

Hopefully this gives you further perspective. Again welcome to DBSTalk.com and asking an awesome set of questions for you first post!


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

What's even more annoying is that the manufacturers DID know about the 24p requirement but still continued selling downgraded models in the US. I bought a Panasonic PZ700 system only 18 months ago - having, I thought, researched sufficiently - and waited until "full-HD 1080p" TVs were at a (somewhat) affordable price. Unfortunately some of my research came from Panasonic's UK website where they had more detailed specs, and I stupidly assumed they'd be the same here other than the obvious differences in the tuner section.
So the Euro models support 480i/p (NTSC), 576i/p (PAL), 720p/50, 720p/60, 1080i/p/50, 1080i/p/50/60 AND 1080p/24. For the US models they disable everything other than the minimum "required" - so no 576/PAL (OK that's somewhat special - although I would have liked it), no 50Hz, and NO 24p.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> One very, very important comment: 1080p24 IS a required standard for 1080p TVs. Any TV that claims 1080p and does not support 1080p24 is definitely out of compliance. (And many, many TVs were not compliant, unfortunately.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Is 1080p60 also a requirement of the standard? BTW, who set the standard...what organization?


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Is it possible that Sony could provide a firmware upgrade that would allow their sets to handle 24fps?

OK...perhaps "possible" and "likely" are two different things here...


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Not to defend any of the tv manufacturers, but the XBR1 is the original one right? they are up to like XBR9 now...Right or wrong early adopters get to reap many benefits, but many times, they lose out on some of the bells and whistles of later models, especially when it comes to newer standards, which when the XBR1 initially came out, the 1080p standard was pretty new.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Not to defend any of the tv manufacturers, but the XBR1 is the original one right? they are up to like XBR9 now...Right or wrong early adopters get to reap many benefits, but many times, they lose out on some of the bells and whistles of later models, especially when it comes to newer standards, which when the XBR1 initially came out, the 1080p standard was pretty new.


[again] Sony SHOULD have listed 1080p/60, instead of "1080p"
Had they done this, then it would have been "my fault" that it doesn't do what I want it to now.
"Hiding the fact" from consumers is why I want to [still] throw them under the bus over this. "They knew" about the standards and "They knew" about Blu-Ray formats.

*durl*

Sony claims it's limited to 1080p/60 by the flat panel, so no firmware will over come this. This may also be BS and it "could be done" with a board change that would convert 1080p/24 to 1080/120 and then divide it by two and display it.
Sony's answer: buy an XBR4 or newer.
We can't call for class action suits here, but if we could.....


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Again, not to kick around Sony too much (though they deserve it for any number of other reasons), but a LOT of TV manufacturers are to blame. My Samsung falls into the same boat - 1080p/60 only, and I'm not ready to part with what is otherwise a fabulous 56" TV. 

But I'm also not blaming Directv for offering 1080p/24 stuff either.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

LameLefty said:


> Again, not to kick around Sony too much (though they deserve it for any number of other reasons), but a LOT of TV manufacturers are to blame.


 "True", I'm throwing Sony under the bus because I have all the documentation that came with mine, and there is ZERO information that lists "what" 1080p it supports.
We all are aware of marketing "hype", but to omit technical specs that are pertinent, should be a civil offense [and maybe is].


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Ah, the fate of the early adopter. You all are right, that things could have and should have gone a different way. But, this is hardly unique. My $400 DVD player bought in 1998 couldn't play half the disks on the market by 2000. I've owned how many computers, how many peripherals, that were obsolete long before they were amortized. 

Right now at home I've got a 720p television that has HDMI 1.1. This was advertised as meeting all ATSC standards. In fact it does not; using my computer to test I can tell you that it doesn't receive 1080p of any stripe or 540p either (which is an ATSC standard mode.)


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

Honestly, I can live without 24fps. I'm very happy with my display and have enjoyed it's 3+ years of usage before 24fps material became available via Directv.

While it would be nice to see what it looks like, it's not worth a new TV for me to find out.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Not to defend any of the tv manufacturers, but the XBR1 is the original one right? they are up to like XBR9 now...Right or wrong early adopters get to reap many benefits, but many times, they lose out on some of the bells and whistles of later models, especially when it comes to newer standards, which when the XBR1 initially came out, the 1080p standard was pretty new.


That's fair, but as I said above, how come the same TV sold in Europe does support 24p while the US version doesn't?
Mine's only last year's model - hardly ancient.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

jazzyjez said:


> That's fair, but as I said above, how come the same TV sold in Europe does support 24p while the US version doesn't?
> Mine's only last year's model - hardly ancient.


That is a question you have to take up with Sony, unfortunately. Sony is again not the only culprit, but it's very common for items destined for one market to be different from a supposedly-identical item destined for another, even if they carry the same consumer model number.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

This situation does suck (I have TVs that cannot do teh DirecTV 1080p/24 signal) but, much of it is due to technological issues and not eveil companies trying to screw us all over. The reason many plasma and LCD tvs did not have 1080p24 inputs was because the panels did not support that refresh rate. Not until 120 hz LCD (evenly divisible by 24) and the newer batch of plasmas was it easy to do without artifacting. In fact, teh Panny plasmas from teh UK while they can accept 24p, the panel is no different, it is just in the firmware of the TV to make the conversion.

The chips in the DirecTV boxes can only do 1080p/24 and until very recently, there was no other chip on the market that could do 60, so they did not choose 24 over 60 they did the only thing they could. In fact, I doubt they even gave much thought to the 1080p capabilities of the chips when they designed the thing, they recently added it because they found that they could make it work.

Now, they probably should add some disclaimers on commercials as the majority of 1080p capable sets right now cannot support 24hz, but in a few more years it will not matter.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

smiddy said:


> Hopefully this gives you further perspective.


Since everything you mentioned was already said several times in the thread, I'm not sure it gave him further perspective.

But excellent answers!!


----------



## gitarzan (Dec 31, 2005)

My Mitsubish 1080P purchased in 2005 will not accept a 1080p signal form an external input. This was a big disappointment when I found out. I paid a lot more for a a1080P TV. My fault I geuss I didn't do my homework I can not even get 1080P on my 1080P TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bonscott87 said:


> Simple answer: 1080p/24 is the standard.


If you take a careful look at the ATSC standard A/81, you'll find that all frame rates are "standard" for DBS in 1920x1080p.

frame_rate_code: 1 = 23.976 Hz, 2 = 24 Hz, 4 = 29.97 Hz, 5 = 30 Hz, 7 = 59.94 Hz, 8 = 
60 Hz


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

gitarzan said:


> My Mitsubish 1080P purchased in 2005 will not accept a 1080p signal form an external input. This was a big disappointment when I found out. I paid a lot more for a a1080P TV. My fault I geuss I didn't do my homework I can not even get 1080P on my 1080P TV.


Some early "1080p" TVs were like this, they upconverted 1080i to 1080p but would not accept a 1080p signal.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

harsh said:


> If you take a careful look at the ATSC standard A/81, you'll find that all frame rates are "standard" for DBS in 1920x1080p.
> 
> frame_rate_code: 1 = 23.976 Hz, 2 = 24 Hz, 4 = 29.97 Hz, 5 = 30 Hz, 7 = 59.94 Hz, 8 =
> 60 Hz


But remember, the ATSC standards only dictate the formats that the *ATSC tuner* can understand. It doesn't mean that the display has to display them without conversion, and it doesn't mean that the TV has to accept those same formats via its *line inputs*.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BattleZone said:


> But remember, the ATSC standards only dictate the formats that the *ATSC tuner* can understand. It doesn't mean that the display has to display them without conversion, and it doesn't mean that the TV has to accept those same formats via its *line inputs*.


Understand that these aren't OTA standards. A/81 is the DBS standards as drafted in 2003. It has nothing to do with ATSC tuners.


----------



## rrrick8 (Mar 20, 2007)

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth since I have a Sony XBR-3 which won't play the 1080p24.
What I do have though is a Sony PS3 that does and can convert it to 1080p60 so my XBR-3 would be able to view the DIRECTV 1080p content.

However, DIRECTV, apparently won't give the proper codec or adjustment that can make this happen.
My PS3 can see the folders in my HR20 recorded list, but they can't play them.

I still don't understand why DIRECTV won't add what is need to allow this. It can't be that expensive.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rrrick8 said:


> I'll throw in my 2 cents worth since I have a Sony XBR-3 which won't play the 1080p24.
> What I do have though is a Sony PS3 that does and can convert it to 1080p60 so my XBR-3 would be able to view the DIRECTV 1080p content.
> 
> However, DIRECTV, apparently won't give the proper codec or adjustment that can make this happen.
> ...


It isn't DIRECTV, it is Sony. Sony hasn't paid for the DTCP-IP option to playback protected content via the network.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## waynebtx (Dec 24, 2006)

It isn't DIRECTV, it is Sony. Last time i checked they have no plans to update there PS3 to allow this.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

amz11 said:


> I just saw one of Direct TV's 1080p VOD ads and attempted to reset the format setting on my Sony KDS r50xbr1 tv, given that it's 1080p capable, to receive the format. Of course there's a small technicality, it can only receive 1080p60, not the 1080p24 format direct TV broadcasts in.
> 
> *Could someone please explain a few things to me:
> *
> ...





texasbrit said:


> Some early "1080p" TVs were like this, they upconverted 1080i to 1080p but would not accept a 1080p signal.


As a former owner of a KDS-R50XBR1, I can attest to it being an 'early "1080p" TV' that could not receive a 1080p signal except through it's i.link port. The TV definitely had the higher resolution (1920x1080) and was (p)rogressive by design, so it was a de facto 1080p set. Back then there weren't any 1080p sources readily available and all you were looking for was the deinterlacing from 1080i.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> As a former owner of a KDS-R50XBR1, I can attest to it being an 'early "1080p" TV' that could not receive a 1080p signal except through it's i.link port. The TV definitely had the higher resolution (1920x1080) and was (p)rogressive by design, so it was a de facto 1080p set. Back then there weren't any 1080p sources readily available and all you were looking for was the deinterlacing from 1080i.


As an XBR2 owner, one of the first things I did was to connect my HTPC to it through DVI to HDMI and saw 1080p. It looked much better than the 1080i, over component, with my earlier Sony RPTV.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Artwood said:


> You would be able to tell the difference if you watched scenes involving motion and really knew what to look for.


That's not necessarily true. In fact, if the TV correctly deinterlaces a 24fps movie that is encoded in a 1080i video signal, there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever from what would be obtained if the same source was distributed in a 1080p24 video signal.

That's the dirty little secret of 1080p24. It's mostly just a marketing gimmick, as a 1080p24 signal does not contain any more information than a 1080i signal does for any given available bitrate.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Another factor is that 1080p60 would require slightly more than twice the bandwidth of 1080p24 (whether via satellite or On Demand) and would buy nothing, quality-wise, since most of the available material (film) starts out at 24 fps.


1080p60 doesn't require any more bandwidth than 1080p24 if the source material is 24fps, in which case every other frame is just duplicated 2 or 3 times, which MPEG can do without redundantly re-encoding the duplicate frames. The 24 frames per second can each be only encoded and inserted into the bitstream once and then repeated multiple times on the decoding side.

The problem is, the current chipset used in DirecTV HD equipment does not appear to be capable of creating and outputing a 1080p60 video signal so people whose TVs cannot accept and display a 1080p24 signal are out of luck.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

cartrivision said:


> That's not necessarily true. In fact, if the TV correctly deinterlaces a 24fps movie that is encoded in a 1080i video signal, there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever from what would be obtained if the same source was distributed in a 1080p24 video signal.
> 
> That's the dirty little secret of 1080p24. It's mostly just a marketing gimmick, as a 1080p24 signal does not contain any more information than a 1080i signal does for any given available bitrate.


Just to be more specific;

Doesn't it actually have to properly de-interlace a 1080i cinema production. Detect and remove the 3-2 pull-down *field* sequence. Assemble 1080P progressive frames and then either re-add a 3-2 pull-down *frame* sequence for a 1080P/60 Hz display. Or add a 2:2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5, etc. pull-down for a 1080P display by projecting each film frame at a 48, 72, 96, 120 Hz, etc. refresh rate?


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> That's the dirty little secret of 1080p24. It's mostly just a marketing gimmick, as a 1080p24 signal does not contain any more information than a 1080i signal does for any given available bitrate.


A point I have made many times. In fact, the same thing applies to 1080p60 if it's delivering film-sourced material. 1080i60, 1080p24 and 1080p60 all contain the same information when the source is movie material filmed at 24fps. A TV with a decent reverse pulldown system can re-create 1080p24 from the 1080i60 signal (or embed the 1080p24 information in a 1080p60 signal for display). But it is amazing what is the power of marketing when it comes to numbers. It's like the pixel race in digital cameras. Just increasing the number of pixels does not give you a better quality picture. You can't see the difference in resolution unless you enlarge the picture to very large sizes, but the other characteristics of the chipset (color rendition, noise levels etc) are worse with the higher pixel count.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

texasbrit said:


> A point I have made many times. In fact, the same thing applies to 1080p60 if it's delivering film-sourced material. 1080i60, 1080p24 and 1080p60 all contain the same information when the source is movie material filmed at 24fps. A TV with a decent reverse pulldown system can re-create 1080p24 from the 1080i60 signal (or embed the 1080p24 information in a 1080p60 signal for display). But it is amazing what is the power of marketing when it comes to numbers. It's like the pixel race in digital cameras. Just increasing the number of pixels does not give you a better quality picture. You can't see the difference in resolution unless you enlarge the picture to very large sizes, but the other characteristics of the chipset (color rendition, noise levels etc) are worse with the higher pixel count.


So in the area of DirecTV's DoD 1080P/24 Hz cinema content, may we say that it's all marketing hype, so if your TV set will not accept the native 1080P/24 Hz format it's of no matter if you can download a 1080i/60 Hz version of the movie since it will have equivalent PQ?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Assuming your TV de-interlaces properly, yes, there should be very little difference.

Where there IS a difference is if you have a (newer) TV that can display 24 fps content at 24 fps, by refreshing at an even multiple of 24 and displaying each frame at that multiple. Such TVs provide the absolute closest experience to being in the theater.

Here's the list of all such TVs: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155

NOTE: this is NOT a list of TVs that accept 1080/24p input signals; that would be a larger list. This is a list of TVs that accept 1080/24p input signals *AND* display the content at 24 fps.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

BattleZone said:


> ... Here's the list of all such TVs: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155
> 
> NOTE: this is NOT a list of TVs that accept 1080/24p input signals; that would be a larger list. This is a list of TVs that accept 1080/24p input signals *AND* display the content at 24 fps.


This is a helpful list with a lot of other good information on this issue, but it only appears to be for 40" screens and up. However 1080P/24 Hz with 5:5 pull-down-120 Hz has now entered into the 32" screen range such as the one I'm interested in the Samsung LN32B650, since I (as well as just about everyone else here) watch TV almost exclusively from my bedroom where I'm only a little over 5 feet away from the TV component stand and 32" is the largest one should have at this short a viewing distance.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> So in the area of DirecTV's DoD 1080P/24 Hz cinema content, may we say that it's all marketing hype, so if your TV set will not accept the native 1080P/24 Hz format it's of no matter if you can download a 1080i/60 Hz version of the movie since it will have equivalent PQ?


 I've found an improved PQ with 1080p/24 DoD being output in 1080i, over what I see with the premium moves channels that come in 1080i. YMMV


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> I've found an improved PQ with 1080p/24 DoD being output in 1080i, over what I see with the premium moves channels that come in 1080i. YMMV


I realize this as explained very well by BattleZone here:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2065323#post2065323

But what I'm curious about VOS is in whether there is any significant PQ difference in a 1080P download from DoD as compared to a 1080i download? Since, unless DirecTV intensionally lowers the quality for the 1080i one, they should both carry the same information in theory.

I'd conduct the experiment myself except a CSR told me that I'm only allowed to use one of my available PPV credits a month.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> But what I'm curious about VOS is in whether there is any significant PQ difference in a 1080P download from DoD as compared to a 1080i download? Since, unless DirecTV intensionally lowers the quality for the 1080i one, they should both carry the same information in theory.


I'm not sure that "all things are equal", but assuming they were, then it would depend on if your TV could take advantage of 24p content by displaying it at an even multiple of 24.

If your TV is a 1080/60i or 1080/60p-only TV, and bit-rates and such were the same (well, very close; converting 1080/24p to 1080/60i adds a tiny amount of overhead), then there should be no difference.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But what I'm curious about VOS is in whether there is any significant PQ difference in a 1080P download from DoD as compared to a 1080i download? Since, unless DirecTV intensionally lowers the quality for the 1080i one, they should both carry the same information in theory.


I haven't yet measured the variations in [peak] bitrates between VOD 1080p & 1080i.
"For grins" I might "someday" but I've got only one free PPV left and most likely it's going towards a 1080p.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Why would anyone anywhere think that DirecTV would lower what would theoretically be optimum?

Is it possible that the 1080p downloads could come from a better master than the 1080i downloads--especially since with 1080p DirecTV would be trying to offer the best possible viewing experience?

MGM movies to me look better than HBO movies.

Is it because they come from better masters?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Artwood said:


> Why would anyone anywhere think that DirecTV would lower what would theoretically be optimum?
> 
> Is it possible that the 1080p downloads could come from a better master than the 1080i downloads--especially since with 1080p DirecTV would be trying to offer the best possible viewing experience?
> 
> ...


You've seen my post MPEG-4 [over and over]. There are two ways to get MPEG-4:
1) convert MPEG-2 "on the fly" to MPEG-4
2) "Compress" [actually encode] MPEG-4 over and over and... until all "useless" bits are removed. This takes much longer.
MGM starts with a good [great] master and "may" go straight to MPEG-4 [using option 2].
HBO broadcast starts as MPEG-2 and uses option 1
SHO & Starz offer VOD, which "could" start with a good master and follow option 2, since it doesn't need to be done "on the fly", and like 1080p, "could have" greater peaks in bitrate than streamed for "live viewing".
Without comparing examples of each with something like DirecTV2PC, it's hard to get an idea.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

By the way, HBO has been reported as going all MPEG4 with their move to all HD. 

The questions become, does HBO do the encoding to MPEG4 or are they starting to buy libraries of pre-encoded content? (Likely some of both, of course.) 

And what are they using internally? Are they MPEG2 or MPEG4 then converting to the other for those providers that need MPEG2?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

veryoldschool: I was thinking more on the lines that maybe there were actually two different masters used apart from anything else done to the signal.

Could it be possible that they would use a better master for 1080p regardless of what they did to the signal--than the master that they would normally use on their 1080i networks?

I'm sure in most cases it might be the same but maybe since the content providers know that a movie is being sent 1080p--maybe they would try to get the BEST possible master--better than what they would normally use on their normal HD networks?

I'm asking this not because I have an axe to grind--I'm ignorant and would like to learn--why are the masters for MGM better? What makes them better?

I can believe they're better because MGM always looks great to me.

And pardon this ignorant question--what content providers does DirecTV use for 1080p?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I wish I had [any] answers to your questions.
"My gut" tells me these are the same masters. Doesn't really make sense to have "a couple" of masters. By definition "it's a master", and I doubt these days they "wear out".
So it would suggest the variations all come in the processing.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

What happened to the OP?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> What happened to the OP?


 He/she doesn't like us. 
One post/thread [this one] in 2 1/2 years. :lol:


----------

