# When will Dish come out with 1080P receivers?



## Jack White (Sep 17, 2002)

Hopefully godwilling, I will be getting a 1080P HDTV and 1080P HD-DVD or Blue Ray player either at the end of this year, or the start of next year, and I was just wondering if Dish will be making any 1080P receivers by then and if there will be any 1080p programming out there.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Jack White said:


> Hopefully godwilling, I will be getting a 1080P HDTV and 1080P HD-DVD or Blue Ray player either at the end of this year, or the start of next year, and I was just wondering if Dish will be making any 1080P receivers by then and if there will be any 1080p programming out there.


Probably never. Might be nice if they supported native passthru including 1080p24 and 1080p30 IF some suppliers started supporting it. 1080P60 is not part of the ATSC standard.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

I doubt that any content providers are going to be quick to make any kind of move to 1080p. 1080p30 isn't going to give you any additional picture information above what you get with 1080i, and assuming that some content providers decide to forget the ATSC standard and start doing 1080p at 60fps, where is the bandwidth necessary to support that going to come from?


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

BoisePaul said:


> I doubt that any content providers are going to be quick to make any kind of move to 1080p.


In the last six months I have talked to engineers at every local station (Cincinnati) and all of them feel as Paul stated, "they doubt it". All of the stations have spent a lot of money converting to digital and upgrading to 1080p will cost them a LOT more money. For the networks, it would cost quite a bit and most of them don't think it is worth it until a good deal of 1080p material is available.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

It was menioned (leaked to) 1080p support by Scott recently; I would suggest Dish have an idea to make 1080p OUTPUT from HD receiver, not to increase satellite's bandwidth !


----------



## kmcnamara (Jan 30, 2004)

If the broadcasters changed to 1080P, wouldn't that alienate nearly everyone out there? All of a sudden, everyone's existing HDTV receiver would no longer be able to receive the signal because (as mentioned above) 1080P isn't an ATSC standard. I doubt this will happen for years, if ever. Besides, if people want 1080P, they can get a scaler and do it that way.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

BoisePaul said:


> I doubt that any content providers are going to be quick to make any kind of move to 1080p. 1080p30 isn't going to give you any additional picture information above what you get with 1080i, and assuming that some content providers decide to forget the ATSC standard and start doing 1080p at 60fps, where is the bandwidth necessary to support that going to come from?


Actually 1080p24 and 1080p30 compress better which gives a better picture within the same bit rate. And since most film base material is at 24 frames it makes a lot of sense to support this.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

There would be no reason to have a 1080p output until there is some 1080p programming being broadcast... and from several articles and discussions I've read online, this seems highly unlikely in the near future to happen. Partly because of expense and partly because of bandwidth issues... I doubt we will see 1080p broadcast anytime soon.

We could see it on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/whoever-wins releases... but that wouldn't drive a need to have 1080p on a Dish receiver.


----------



## dude2 (May 28, 2006)

1080p requires more frequency bandwidth that the fcc currently allows so why would anybody do it.
I would guess 1080p will be for games etc only.
Check the review of current tvs on Hdtvmagazine.com and find out how few of the current 1080p tvs that can do 1080p. Most of them can;t even though they are rated to. This includes the overated sonys.


----------



## AcuraCL (Dec 12, 2005)

Now playing at a home theater near you:

*"1080P ... A Tribute to PT Barnum"*


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> Actually 1080p24 and 1080p30 compress better which gives a better picture within the same bit rate. And since most film base material is at 24 frames it makes a lot of sense to support this.


That's true, I wasn't really thinking about the compression issues with interlaced material. I wonder how many displays can natively do 24fps (no conversion to 30 or 60 fps) since 30 and 60 don't require any additional clock circuitry.



dude2 said:


> 1080p requires more frequency bandwidth that the fcc currently allows so why would anybody do it.


1080p30 shouldn't require more bandwidth than 1080i30, even with both uncompressed. Breaking it down by pixels per second, they're exactly the same.
1080i30: 1920 x 540 x 60 = 62208000
1080p30: 1920 x 1080 x 30 = 62208000
1080p30 IS a valid ATSC format that should be able to run at less than 19.4 MBit/s, depending on the level of compression applied.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

The primary use for 1080p is going to be hi-def DVDs (whichever format wins out). 1080p seems to be the current movie studio standard for digital films, so there should be plenty of content. There's really no reason for 1080p broadcast.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> That's true, I wasn't really thinking about the compression issues with interlaced material. I wonder how many displays can natively do 24fps (no conversion to 30 or 60 fps) since 30 and 60 don't require any additional clock circuitry.
> 
> 1080p30 shouldn't require more bandwidth than 1080i30, even with both uncompressed. Breaking it down by pixels per second, they're exactly the same.
> 1080i30: 1920 x 540 x 60 = 62208000
> ...


I don't understand the hoopla with 1080p...

It is all a bunch of marketing... the reason you don't see 1080i televisions being marketed, is because the technology being used in the microdisplays that are now popular are progressive displays by virtue of the technology used in them. They should all have powerful enough deinterlacers that you will see no difference between a 1080i signal and a 1080p signal. They all combine both fields of the 1080i signal into one full frame and then display it for 1/30th of a second. There is SOME small room for interlacing artifacts, but a 1080 resolution signal is so high that you will not notice if the frames are off by a pixel or so. (which they shouldn't be.)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, it's depend how big and how fast that object moving - imagine car racing, close shot - what will changes in 1/60 second ? A lot !


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

They (The Broadcasters) have to get 720p perfected first. :nono2: :nono: :nono2: :nono:


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Well, it's depend how big and how fast that object moving - imagine car racing, close shot - what will changes in 1/60 second ? A lot !


Perhaps... but since film is only 24 fps... do you mean to say that when you watch a movie about a Nascar racing you can see the glitches due to it being lower than 60 fps frame rate?


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Perhaps... but since film is only 24 fps... do you mean to say that when you watch a movie about a Nascar racing you can see the glitches due to it being lower than 60 fps frame rate?


I think what P Smith is referring to is that deinterlacing fast motion would result in strange looking frames because enough would have changed in the 60th of a second between when the odd and even lines were captured. It's possible for every other line to be out of alignment, making things look fuzzy. I would imagine that the Nascar movie you speak of would have been captured at 24 fps progressive. It's not the framerate so much as it's the conversion that causes issues.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

grooves12 said:


> I don't understand the hoopla with 1080p...


All of the theory aside, take a trip down to your local video store and look real close at the 1080i version of an RPTV and then look at the 1080p version. Among LCoS or DLP displays, you will see a big difference. Notice that all of the Screen Door Effect has gone away in the 1080p versions. In Plasma and LCD, there will probably always be some SDE.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

harsh said:


> All of the theory aside, take a trip down to your local video store and look real close at the 1080i version of an RPTV and then look at the 1080p version. Among LCoS or DLP displays, you will see a big difference. Notice that all of the Screen Door Effect has gone away in the 1080p versions. In Plasma and LCD, there will probably always be some SDE.


First off SDE effect is NOT a side effect of an interlaced signal, it is a problem inherent to certain types of technologies. So what does SDE being seen in LCD and Plasma have anything to do with 1080i vs. 1080p?? Older LCOS sets exhibited horrible SDE.

Second, the fact that newer micro-displays look better has NOTHING to do with 1080p vs. 1080i as a broadcast medium... and everything to do with the fact that the display technologies are advancing. You can NOT make a direct comparison of a 1080i TV vs. 1080p TV, because there are NONE available in the same type of technology to make that comparison.

The ONLY 1080i TV's on the market are CRT-based RPTV's ... as far as I know, no CRT 1080p TV's exist, because of the way the technology displays the information sent to it, and since most people seem to prefer the smaller form factor of the microdisplay technologies, people aren't bothering to advance this dieing medium.

Vice Versa... DLP, LCOS, LCD, etc. do not exist in 1080i versions because of the way they display the information sent to them. It first HAS to be coverted to a progressive picture before being displayed. The technology isn't designed to refresh pictures in an interlaced manner. DLP, LCD, and LCOS product lineups all go from 720p to 1080p, because like I said the technology is not conducive to displaying an interlaced signal. So, OF COURSE the 1080p TV's look better than the older ones with less resolution. But, that has nothing to do with, nor is it a problem with 1080i.

Ask just about any videophile and almost all will tell you that no 1080p microdisplay set available can best the picture of the "lowly" 1080i CRT RPTV when properly calibrated.

1080p is mostly marketing hype. In fact, most DLP sets marketed as 1080p are actually a "wobulated" display... which is actually technically closer to an interlaced display. But, on test patterns and subjective viewings many can't tell the difference (and many prefer) the picture to that of a true progressive display such as the latest LCOS TV's.


----------



## unr1 (Jul 16, 2005)

ssmith10pn said:


> They (The Broadcasters) have to get 720p perfected first. :nono2: :nono: :nono2: :nono:


Agreed.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

grooves12 said:


> First off SDE effect is NOT a side effect of an interlaced signal, it is a problem inherent to certain types of technologies. So what does SDE being ...
> 1080p is mostly marketing hype. In fact, most DLP sets marketed as 1080p are actually a "wobulated" display... which is actually technically closer to an interlaced display. But, on test patterns and subjective viewings many can't tell the difference (and many prefer) the picture to that of a true progressive display such as the latest LCOS TV's.


A lot of it is hype. But a 1080p display can better display a 720P source than a 1080i TV. It should also do well with 1080p24/30 programs. Can usually also take 1080i material based on 1080p24/30 material and better display it. With the potential of hd-dvd/blu-ray support, some future exists for true 1080p60 material.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

tnsprin said:


> A lot of it is hype. But a 1080p display can better display a 720P source than a 1080i TV. It should also do well with 1080p24/30 programs. Can usually also take 1080i material based on 1080p24/30 material and better display it. With the potential of hd-dvd/blu-ray support, some future exists for true 1080p60 material.


The main problem with 1080p is it only has source material in Blue-Ray and HD-DVD and maybe someday from satellite.

OTA will not accomodate 1080p until compression is able to double the present technological envelope (it will not fit todays FCC mandated channel bandwidth). Then local TV stations would have to replace some of their expensive digital equipment with some that would accomodate 1080p (like pulling teeth). Fox or ABC would be the best bet to be able to do this since they already broadcast 720p. 1080i is so different, my guess is a 1080i station might have to replace nearly everything in the transmitter especially.

ALL non-CRT displays are inherently progressive, so if you have a LCD, LCOS, DLP, plasma whatever, the display itself is ALWAYS progressive, the tuner and circuitry must de-interlace everything to match it with the display.

Oh, by the way A Sony G70 or G90 CRT projector does beautiful 1080p. The only reason RP CRT's don't do 1080p is the high bandwidth is expensive, technologically the hardware does exist. I believe a BARCO Graphics RP setup will do 1080p, but it's just a FP projector in a projection box. I see them on eBay from time to time. I'd buy one if the shipping wasn't double the price of the unit.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> OTA will not accomodate 1080p until compression is able to double the present technological envelope (it will not fit todays FCC mandated channel bandwidth).


Why do you say this? Either 1080p30 or 1080p24 should fit just fine in 19.4Mbps. Granted, 1080p60 will not, but then again, it's not part of the ATSC standard either. I'm not even sure that HD-DVD or BlueRay are planned to ever support 1080p60 since it's not part of any standard.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> Fox or ABC would be the best bet to be able to do this since they already broadcast 720p.


The problem with this theory is that the 720p stations often have less bandwidth set aside for HD. Remember that the 720p uncompressed bitrate is less than 1080i. I would guess that there wouldn't be much room for subchannels with 125% more taken up by HD.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BoisePaul said:


> Why do you say this? Either 1080p30 or 1080p24 should fit just fine in 19.4Mbps. Granted, 1080p60 will not, but then again, it's not part of the ATSC standard either.


High Definition disc formats nor satellite are subject to ATSC limitations.


> I'm not even sure that HD-DVD or BlueRay are planned to ever support 1080p60 since it's not part of any standard.


Both HD DVD and Blu-ray claim to support 1080p. The assumption is that the frame rate is 60fps. The Samsung Blu-ray player claims 1080p output.

Software in both formats claims to be 1080p. You can do some pretty amazing compression of HD content if you can cook it for a while. My theory is that in order for satellite to pull off 1080p, they would have to be fed this painstakingly compressed content to begin with as opposed to recompressing on the fly.

Imagine for a moment the load that a 1080p scan converter would have to bear to convert an image to something that would display on a 720p unit. Remember that in most (if not all) digital displays (even the "720p native" ones), 720p content must be scan converted for display.


----------



## BoisePaul (Apr 26, 2005)

harsh said:


> High Definition disc formats nor satellite are subject to ATSC limitations.


Correct. I was directly addressing a statement regarding OTA, which IS subject to ATSC limitations.


harsh said:


> The assumption is that the frame rate is 60fps.


That's a big assumption. One can truthfully claim 1080p support, but I've yet to see a spec sheet that claims 1080p60. It's pretty much a given that 1080p30 and 1080p24 will be supported.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

BoisePaul said:


> I think what P Smith is referring to is that deinterlacing fast motion would result in strange looking frames because enough would have changed in the 60th of a second between when the odd and even lines were captured. It's possible for every other line to be out of alignment, making things look fuzzy. I would imagine that the Nascar movie you speak of would have been captured at 24 fps progressive. It's not the framerate so much as it's the conversion that causes issues.


Possibly... except that this is based on some bad information that has been circling the net about how interlacing works.

The two 540 line interlaced lines in a 1080i full image are not captured in sequential segments... but are rather captured as one contiguous 1080 line image that is then divided into the two 540 line scans for the interlace display.

If it helps... think of it this way... 1080 images are captured as 1080p 30fps images and then are converted to 1080i 60 fps images for broadcast... so there is no 1/60th of a second shift between the even/odd scans of a single frame. All the hoopla comes from a few Web sites and people that have been passing around theoretical 1/60th of a second shifts that would result IF the image was captured that way... but that is not how they are captured for broadcast.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> f it helps... think of it this way... 1080 images are captured as 1080p 30fps images and then are converted to 1080i 60 fps images for broadcast... so there is no 1/60th of a second shift between the even/odd scans of a single frame. All the hoopla comes from a few Web sites and people that have been passing around theoretical 1/60th of a second shifts that would result IF the image was captured that way... but that is not how they are captured for broadcast.


While is is obvious that a majority of the digital video currently shot is not time shifted interlace, it could (and should) be done within the existing standards. It may throw some of the image processing algorithms for a loop though.


----------

