# 1080P VOD



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

How will 1080P VOD work? I have several HDTV's but only one that is 1080p capable. How will it work or look on the non-1080p HDTV's? Will it work at all? I'm looking forward to that feature but the only thing that scares me away from it is the lack of closed captioning. So far, all HD VOD's I've downloaded, none of them are captioned.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Not sure, since it hasn't been released yet and other than the PR announcing 1080p VOD, there has been nothing.

The recever may do test, like when you set your resolutions and if you can see the prompt and reply correctly, you get 1080p, otherwise you get to watch in the highest resolution your set supports. But that's just a guess for now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

My guess is that 1080p VOD won't be available to displays that can't handle 1080p/24 natively. This may include some TVs that claim to be 1080p capable.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Every thing they came out with so far has been backwards comparable so you should at least to watch it. As far of any benefit of 1080p or1080 24p i feel it depends on how large your tv is. On my 40 in i cant tell much difference between buray at 24p and sat hd that is not over compressed,and i just got a new pare of glasses last week.


----------



## jerseyreef (Jun 9, 2007)

I'm assuming that 1080P VOD be accessible with the current HD DVR lineup or do we have to wait for the long rumored 1080P HD DVR?

I have a new Panasonic 50PZ850U, which can display 1080P/24, but I currently do not have Blue-Ray or HD-DVD player and I haven't been able to fully enjoy my TV 

BTW - what's the ETA on the 1080P VOD?

Thanks,

JerseyReef - Mike


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I went on the Directv website and put in a e-mail request for closed captioning on vod. The more people the better.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

gfrang said:


> I went on the Directv website and put in a e-mail request for CC on vod. The more people the better.


I think CC is a provider thing, not DIRECTV. Tho I bet DIRECTV is pushing the providers to start supplying CC.

Now, what does that have to do with 1080p? 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I think CC is a provider thing, not DIRECTV. Tho I bet DIRECTV is pushing the providers to start supplying CC.
> 
> Now, what does that have to do with 1080p?
> 
> ...


Just that the OP stated a need for it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

My bad, missed that. 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> My guess is that 1080p VOD won't be available to displays that can't handle 1080p/24 natively. This may include some TVs that claim to be 1080p capable.


Indeed, there are a lot of them that can't. I'm thinking fewer this year than last, thankfully.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Just wondering if a 1080/p24 signal can be down converted to 720p so people with older tv's can view it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes, even down to 480i (ugh) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

gfrang said:


> Just wondering if a 1080/p24 signal can be down converted to 720p so people with older tv's can view it.


I would think that anything being offered in 1080p, would also be available in 720p or 1080i (like programming being offered in HD and SD).


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Now the last question can 24fps be converted to 60fps?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

SageTv and SageTv HD Media Extender already offer 1080p VOD, and it displays fine on my 1080p Aquos, as well as my 720p Polaroid. I'm assuming HDMI asks the TV "Can you do 1080p" and the TV answers yes or no. Mine pops up a message when it changes. Now, as to whether 1080p can be output from current DVR's...I have no clue. If it can, I wish they would add that option to the menu, so I could output everything in 1080p, as I do with Sage.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

gfrang said:


> Now the last question can 24fps be converted to 60fps?


For now it should be done by your HDTV, check a manual and AVSforum.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Since it hasn't been released, and no specs announced, likely NO ONE here can say for sure.

Having said that, it is virtually certain that these VOD movies will be treated just like any other content, meaning that the receiver will downconvert the signal as necessary for your TV. The ONLY people who are likely to see a difference is those who have 1080p-input-capable TVs connected via HDMI.

The movies will almost certainly be in 1080/24P format, and TVs that can't accept such a signal will almost certainly have that signal converted to 1080/60i by the receiver. TVs that can accept 1080/24P signals, but can't process them correctly (5:5 pulldown for 120Hz, 3:3 for 72 Hz, etc.) will have their TVs convert the signal to a 1080/60 equivalent with 3:2 pulldown. Those newer TVs that correctly support 1080/24p signals will be among the very few who get any benefit from the whole thing. Realize that this is a tiny fraction of HDTV owners...

So, yes, for those few, 1080p VOD means a little something. For most, it's just a marketing tool.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

P Smith said:


> For now it should be done by your HDTV, check a manual and AVSforum.


Yea my tv will display 1080i/24p but what about the older tv's? If they send a 24p signal over sat can or will they update the sat receivers to put out 60hz for the older tv's like blu ray players you can turn it off?I guess what i am getting at is will it work for all tv's?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

IIP said:


> Since it hasn't been released, and no specs announced, likely NO ONE here can say for sure.
> 
> Having said that, it is virtually certain that these VOD movies will be treated just like any other content, meaning that the receiver will downconvert the signal as necessary for your TV. The ONLY people who are likely to see a difference is those who have 1080p-input-capable TVs connected via HDMI.
> 
> ...


Thats what i was looking for but i feel they are going to 24p to save on bandwith.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

gfrang said:


> Yea my tv will display 1080i/24p but what about the older tv's? If they send a 24p signal over sat can or will they update the sat receivers to put out 60hz for the older tv's like blu ray players you can turn it off?I guess what i am getting at is will it work for all tv's?


Look how Dish manage same 1080p24 VOD - if your DVR didn't get 1080p24 support from HD TV, then it will ask you run it in 1080i or 720p or 480i mode.
Just pay your money .


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

IIP said:


> Since it hasn't been released, and no specs announced, likely NO ONE here can say for sure.
> 
> Having said that, it is virtually certain that these VOD movies will be treated just like any other content, meaning that the receiver will downconvert the signal as necessary for your TV. The ONLY people who are likely to see a difference is those who have 1080p-input-capable TVs connected via HDMI.
> 
> ...


Since there is a first peek at this now:
Your TV must support 1080p/24
If not, then 1080i/720p will work.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Has anyone looked at the properties of the free "Bucket List" VOD on the 1080P test channel to see what the frame rate is? It doesn't show up on the On Demand menu but can be found on the web site on channel 1080 (1080PCE). I'm downloading it over a 1.5 Mbps connection and figure it will take about 15 hours to complete the download. :eek2:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> Has anyone looked at the properties of the free "Bucket List" VOD on the 1080P test channel to see what the frame rate is? It doesn't show up on the On Demand menu but can be found on the web site on channel 1080 (1080PCE). I'm downloading it over a 1.5 Mbps connection and figure it will take about 15 hours to complete the download. :eek2:


IT IS 1080p/24


----------



## jamieh1 (May 1, 2003)

bobnielsen said:


> Has anyone looked at the properties of the free "Bucket List" VOD on the 1080P test channel to see what the frame rate is? It doesn't show up on the On Demand menu but can be found on the web site on channel 1080 (1080PCE). I'm downloading it over a 1.5 Mbps connection and figure it will take about 15 hours to complete the download. :eek2:


I downloaded it starting last night about 12a- finished today around 11:45a, at 1MBPS.


----------



## muadib (Dec 23, 2007)

So DTV 1080p is only 1080p/24? That's disappointing.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

muadib said:


> So DTV 1080p is only 1080p/24? That's disappointing.


Remember this is VOD and that is the refresh rate of the original film, so it is a feature.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

How do you get to the test channel?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

muadib said:


> So DTV 1080p is only 1080p/24? That's disappointing.


I think that if you look closely, you'll find many 1080p video sources to be 1080p/24 rather than 1080p/30 or 1080p/60.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bobnielsen said:


> Remember this is VOD and that is the refresh rate of the original film, so it is a feature.


This assumes that the program was shot on film as opposed to HD video. The days of shooting movies on film are probably as numbered as the days of recording video on tape.

Modern movie theaters are changing towards video projection as well.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

harsh said:


> I think that if you look closely, you'll find many 1080p video sources to be 1080p/24 rather than 1080p/30 or 1080p/60.


unfortunately a LOT of 1080p sets don't work with it.. Personaly I think this will be a niche thing... especialy for the average user.. very few sets support 24, even a lot of highline sets won't play it..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> This assumes that the program was shot on film as opposed to HD video. The days of shooting movies on film are probably as numbered as the days of recording video on tape.
> 
> Modern movie theaters are changing towards video projection as well.


When I asked about this some time back, it turns out "film" is still used for more than one would think. While theaters may be moving away for film, networks are still "Filming" programs for airing on TV.


----------



## muadib (Dec 23, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Remember this is VOD and that is the refresh rate of the original film, so it is a feature.


My PS3, and panny BD30 blu ray player gives you the option to turn 1080p/24 on or off. Why can't the DTV receiver do the same?

My tv is a little over 2 years old, and my projector is less than a year. I can't believe DTV plans to kiss the revenue from the older, and the average adapters good-bye.

Is there a link somewhere that states the stats?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> This assumes that the program was shot on film as opposed to HD video. The days of shooting movies on film are probably as numbered as the days of recording video on tape.
> 
> Modern movie theaters are changing towards video projection as well.


All true, but 1080p24 is the choice of most "movie" shoots and the final presentation.

IMAX is also becoming more popular for the original source material.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

muadib said:


> My PS3, and panny BD30 blu ray player gives you the option to turn 1080p/24 on or off. Why can't the DTV receiver do the same?
> 
> My tv is a little over 2 years old, and my projector is less than a year. I can't believe DTV plans to kiss the revenue from the older, and the average adapters good-bye.
> 
> Is there a link somewhere that states the stats?


You will be given an option for turning 1080p24 off. In CE there is a method, but I don't know if that will be the final method.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

It will only play in 1020p if you have native on and the HDMI handshake detects that the TV supports that rate. My 2 year old Vizio doesn't support 1080p, but the video plays without issues. Otherwise, the HR20 will output 1080i, 720p, etc. If non-film content is offered, I suspect that it will be 1020/30p.

More information and discussion in the CE Forum.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> Has anyone looked at the properties of the free "Bucket List" VOD on the 1080P test channel to see what the frame rate is? It doesn't show up on the On Demand menu but can be found on the web site on channel 1080 (1080PCE). I'm downloading it over a 1.5 Mbps connection and figure it will take about 15 hours to complete the download. :eek2:


Since the channel number has CE in it, my bet is that this is related to a Cutting Edge test, so I'm sure you'll find more information and discussion about it in the Cutting Edge forum.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

muadib said:


> So DTV 1080p is only 1080p/24? That's disappointing.


What else would have have expected it to be? There is probably some niche programming out there in 1080p/60, but the vast majority of 1080p content was mastered in either 24 or 30 fps, with most movies being the former.


----------



## PTravel (Oct 5, 2007)

muadib said:


> So DTV 1080p is only 1080p/24? That's disappointing.


Why? Motion pictures are shot at 24 fps. 1080p/30 requires artificial "pull-up" in which parts of frames are blended to make up for the difference in frame rate. Televisions playing DVDs of movies have to detect the 3:2 pull-up and do a pull-down in which the frames are restored to the original frame rate.

You're not losing a thing if you watch movies at 1080p/24.

However, don't expect to Blu-Ray quality over DOD 1080p. The various services that deliver this format have to huge enormous compression rates, resulting soft, indistinct video, motion and compression artifacts and banding. This is just a marketing trick -- not a true increase in video quality. 1080p DOD will not look as good as a Blu-Ray DVD.

90% of the audience wouldn't recognize the difference between 1080p and 1080i, anyway. I certainly don't, and I have a pretty decent 42" 1080p HDTV.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

PTravel said:


> Why? Motion pictures are shot at 24 fps. 1080p/30 requires artificial "pull-up" in which parts of frames are blended to make up for the difference in frame rate. Televisions playing DVDs of movies have to detect the 3:2 pull-up and do a pull-down in which the frames are restored to the original frame rate.
> 
> You're not losing a thing if you watch movies at 1080p/24.
> 
> ...


While your probably right... Until I see it I can't agree with you...


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

PTravel said:


> Why? Motion pictures are shot at 24 fps. 1080p/30 requires artificial "pull-up" in which parts of frames are blended to make up for the difference in frame rate. Televisions playing DVDs of movies have to detect the 3:2 pull-up and do a pull-down in which the frames are restored to the original frame rate.
> 
> You're not losing a thing if you watch movies at 1080p/24.
> 
> ...


I can't see the difference between 1080I and 1080P. But then, I can't see the difference between component and HDMI either.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

muadib said:


> So DTV 1080p is only 1080p/24? That's disappointing.


Why? What would 1080p/60 do for you that 1080p/24 can't do? Can you name one thing that you want to see that has a source resolution and frame rate of 1080p/60?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

The one 1080p Vod program, looks damn good.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

techrep said:


> I can't see the difference between 1080I and 1080P. But then, I can't see the difference between component and HDMI either.


And you shouldn't see a difference between component and HDMI if both inputs are calibrated similarly. 

I don't know if you'll see a difference on 1080p24 and 1080i or not. Usually a good conversion only has a few artifacts when converting 24fps to 30fps. It often boils down to knowing what to look for.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

gfrang said:


> How do you get to the test channel?


You can't do it from the receiver - you have to download in online. Login to your account on directv.com and then cut and paste this link into the address bar of the browser window where you have logged-in: 
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/epg/theGuide.jsp
Choose "DIRECTV on Demand" under the "TV Schedule" box on the left side of the screen. This gets you to where you can schedule a VOD download. Pull down the channel list under filters and choose HD 1080P Test Channel.


----------



## Sibe74 (Aug 23, 2007)

I make a living as a video editor and work with HD source material on a daily basis in all the various formats and frame rates. I have viewed the 1080 24P material and I must say that it looks great. I expected more compression artifacting... but whatever they are using to compress these programs is doing an amazing job. 

By having this available On Demand they can really tweak the bandwidth by processing the compression in multiple passes as apposed to doing it on the fly. When video is processed this way the end result is much better. This is the same technique used for DVD or Blu-ray creation. 

Having this in 1080 24P is a benefit in 2 ways... 

1 - The orginal content is created in 24 frames. You will get a better picture keeping it in the original format. Converting from 24f to 30f or 60f introduces judder and other artifacts thus sacrificing picture quality. 

2 - Having 24 frames a second instead of 30 or 60 saves on bandwidth which makes for smaller downloads.

In response the earlier poster...

Most movies and TV series are shot on film, which is 24fps, and if HD cameras are used they are doing so in 24P. Of course there are exceptions to this, but this is the case in most situations.

In regards to theaters going to Digital means they are using HD projectors is incorrect in most cases. Movies theaters usually us 4K projectors (Christie, Barco or Sony are common) as apposed to HDTV projectors. These projectors are much higher resolution than HD. I have been in some smaller theatres that do use HDTV projectors and you can see the difference and it's not good.

Hope this makes sense.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

I have a Panasonic TH50PX77U. It does not support “native” 1080p/24, but my understanding is that it will do the 3:2 pulldown and dispay a 1808p/24 input as 1080p/60. When I play the test VOD, my TV kicks down to 720P (HR20 set for Native, and all resolutions – 480i-1080i). Does the test require the CE to output 1080p (I’m on NR).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Thanks for the details, Sib374. That very nicely confirms most of what I thought I knew. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

rudeney said:


> I have a Panasonic TH50PX77U. It does not support "native" 1080p/24, but my understanding is that it will do the 3:2 pulldown and dispay a 1808p/24 input as 1080p/60. When I play the test VOD, my TV kicks down to 720P (HR20 set for Native, and all resolutions - 480i-1080i). Does the test require the CE to output 1080p (I'm on NR).


Yes..


----------



## kymikes (Jan 16, 2008)

rudeney said:


> You can't do it from the receiver - you have to download in online. Login to your account on directv.com and then cut and paste this link into the address bar of the browser window where you have logged-in:
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/epg/theGuide.jsp
> Choose "DIRECTV on Demand" under the "TV Schedule" box on the left side of the screen. This gets you to where you can schedule a VOD download. Pull down the channel list under filters and choose HD 1080P Test Channel.


Apparently no longer there either. You posted about an hour ago and gone now.


----------



## betterdan (May 23, 2007)

It isn't there anymore probably because he posted a link to the schedule an hour ago and now it no longer shows that schedule because it is in the past.  

Here's how to find it, log in to your account then click Tv Schedule up top then click Directv On Demand. Now click the drop down box in the middle and change it from all channels to HD 1080P test channel. Click on the movie it shows (Bucket List, The) then click record to receiver.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Has anyone looked at the properties of the free "Bucket List" VOD on the 1080P test channel to see what the frame rate is? It doesn't show up on the On Demand menu but can be found on the web site on channel 1080 (1080PCE). I'm downloading it over a 1.5 Mbps connection and figure it will take about 15 hours to complete the download. :eek2:


It took roughly 2.5 hours on a 10 Mbps connection. I'm viewing it on a 1080i set. While the movie's picture quality is very good, I don't know that it would be a step up from the standard 1080i on my set.

Don't bother explaining that I don't have a 1080p set. I know that. My interest was in the amount of compression utilized, and in how well the set-top box handled 1080i output.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> Has anyone looked at the properties of the free "Bucket List" VOD on the 1080P test channel to see what the frame rate is? It doesn't show up on the On Demand menu but can be found on the web site on channel 1080 (1080PCE). I'm downloading it over a 1.5 Mbps connection and figure it will take about 15 hours to complete the download. :eek2:


It took a bit over 15 hours, which is longer than 1.5 Mbps should require (although I don't know how large the file actually is). I checked speedtest.net immediately afterward and found that I was only getting 367 kbps! I guess my ISP must be cutting me back (when I checked again a few hours later the speed was back to normal). I use Clearwire Wi-Max, so bandwidth sharing might be a factor as well.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Why? What would 1080p/60 do for you that 1080p/24 can't do?


Display properly natively on my one-year-old Panasonic plasma (58PZ700U). Although this is changing pretty rapidly beginning with the 2008s, most older (2007 and earlier) HDTVs do not handle 24p correctly (or at all). This is why most Bluray players have the option of toggling on/off 24p output -- with it toggled "on", it outputs at 24p; with it toggled "off", it presumably does the "pull down" itself and then outputs at 60.

I'm assuming the HRxx's will also have this toggle to account for the large number of 1080p TVs in circulation that don't "do" 24p? This would be an additional "chore" for the HRxx, but it would allow them to use 24p to address the bandwidth contstraints and still have a high level of compatibility with those 1080p TVs that aren't "24p capable". Does anyone know if this is in the works as part of this 1080p rollout?

--Mav


----------



## kymikes (Jan 16, 2008)

betterdan said:


> It isn't there anymore probably because he posted a link to the schedule an hour ago and now it no longer shows that schedule because it is in the past.
> 
> Here's how to find it, log in to your account then click Tv Schedule up top then click Directv On Demand. Now click the drop down box in the middle and change it from all channels to HD 1080P test channel. Click on the movie it shows (Bucket List, The) then click record to receiver.


Thanks. I would have sworn that I tried that last night but it works today.:hurah:


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Display properly natively on my one-year-old Panasonic plasma (58PZ700U). Although this is changing pretty rapidly beginning with the 2008s, most older (2007 and earlier) HDTVs do not handle 24p correctly (or at all). This is why most Bluray players have the option of toggling on/off 24p output -- with it toggled "on", it outputs at 24p; with it toggled "off", it presumably does the "pull down" itself and then outputs at 60.


I'm not sure I understand what the advantage is. If you have a TV that can handle a progressive input, but doesn't handle 24p correctly, then you've lost the ability to have judder-free playback of 24fps content. So since that advantage is thrown out the window, why does it have to be *60*/p? I'm assuming that the HR _will_ be able to convert to 60/*i*, which your TV should be able to display progressively without any loss of information. Sure, it won't be at the same cadence as the original 24fps content, but if your TV can't handle that input properly, it wouldn't anyway. Sending in 24p saves bandwidth and preserves the original cadence. Sending in 60p requires 3/2 pulldown to be introduced into the signal and consumes bandwidth. Why would they want to do the latter?


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> I'm assuming the HRxx's will also have this toggle to account for the large number of 1080p TVs in circulation that don't "do" 24p? This would be an additional "chore" for the HRxx,


You probably won't ever see that on any of the current models of HD DVRs. The data sheets for the chips used in them lists 1080p/24 and 1080/p30 as supported output modes, but not 1080p/60.



> but it would allow them to use 24p to address the bandwidth contstraints and still have a high level of compatibility with those 1080p TVs that aren't "24p capable". Does anyone know if this is in the works as part of this 1080p rollout?


I doubt that there is any bandwidth savings by encoding a 24fps source in 1080p/24 vs. 1080i. Perhaps someone more familiar with MPEG4 encoding can comment, but it would seem to me that since the extra number of frames present in the 1080i output of a 24fps film are just duplicates of the input frames, those duplicate frames would be created on the decode side of the process instead of encoded twice and existing as duplicate data in the encoded MPEG4 data stream.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

Question... my HR20 is set to "native off" and left on 1080i. Will I have to set it to "native on" to watch the 1080p DOD that I'm downloading? So far, it has downloaded about 18% and when I went in to start watching a little bit, it shows nothing but black screen. What's up with that?


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

From http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=136602

# This is only for the HR20 .. It is not available on the HR21 or HR22 at the moment.
# Only available via DIRECTV on Demand at the moment (Channel 1080)
# You must use HDMI
# You must turn Native to 'on'


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> You probably won't ever see that on any of the current models of HD DVRs. The data sheets for the chips used in them lists 1080p/24 and 1080/p30 as supported output modes, but not 1080p/60.


Not to mention that there is almost no content sourced at 1080p60. Even if the box supported it, it would impact almost no content whatsoever.



cartrivision said:


> I doubt that there is any bandwidth savings by encoding a 24fps source in 1080p/24 vs. 1080i. Perhaps someone more familiar with MPEG4 encoding can comment, but it would seem to me that since the extra number of frames present in the 1080i output of a 24fps film are just duplicates of the input frames, those duplicate frames would be created on the decode side of the process instead of encoded twice and existing as duplicate data in the encoded MPEG4 data stream.


The bandwidth savings are slightly more complicated when you think of progressive data versus interlaced data. You have to worry about odd/even with interlaced where you do not in progressive. In other words, line 5 in progressive in a still scene will actually repeat the previous scene. In interlaced, line 5 will repeat the data every other frame. It can be overcome with the compression algorithm to a large extent, but not completely. That being said, the difference is not large.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Sending in 24p saves bandwidth and preserves the original cadence. Sending in 60p requires 3/2 pulldown to be introduced into the signal and consumes bandwidth. Why would they want to do the latter?


Well, I would, of course, prefer 24p if my TV could handle that, but since it (and the vast majority of HDTVs made prior to the 2008 model year) can't, there's something of a significant "hitch" in this 1080p plan. As indicated, the way other 1080p sources deal with the issue of 24p source material and displays that can't handle it is by giving the user the option of having the source component handle the pulldown and output at 60. This would seem to make the most sense if (a) you're correct that 24p does indeed save on bandwidth (I'm not doubting you; I just don't know, so I'm assuming you're right), and (b) there's an interest in having this "work" for most 1080p HDTV owners.

--Mav

P.S. Your post indicates that you'd expect the HRxx to convert 1080p/24 to 1080i/60 and that somehow this is preferred to 1080p/24 with a pulldown applied to 1080p/60. I'm not sure I understand how the HRxx (or any other device, for that matter) can take a 1080p/24 source and output it at 1080i/60 without doing a pulldown. Aren't those distinct issues such that in order to go from 24 to 60, a 3:2 pulldown (or 2:3, I forget which now) has to be applied -- regardless of whether the result is 1080i/60 or 1080p/60? I don't know, I'm just asking.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

dbmaven said:


> From http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=136602
> 
> # This is only for the HR20 .. It is not available on the HR21 or HR22 at the moment.
> # Only available via DIRECTV on Demand at the moment (Channel 1080)
> ...


Is this for HR20 with CE's only? Or can I force download the update on my receiver?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

cartrivision said:


> I doubt that there is any bandwidth savings by encoding a 24fps source in 1080p/24 vs. 1080i. Perhaps someone more familiar with MPEG4 encoding can comment, but it would seem to me that since the extra number of frames present in the 1080i output of a 24fps film are just duplicates of the input frames, those duplicate frames would be created on the decode side of the process instead of encoded twice and existing as duplicate data in the encoded MPEG4 data stream.


Yes, *if *properly encoded, the duplicate frames should be handled with repeat flags. But everything I've read has indicated that progressive content compresses more efficiently than interlaced content, due to it's more linear nature. The odd then even line nature of interlaced content results in a less "coherent" flow when things are moving. I've seen suggestions that the difference in efficiency can be as much as 20-30%. But I don't know if MPEG4 reduces that gap compared to MPEG2.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

dbmaven said:


> From http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=136602
> 
> # This is only for the HR20 .. It is not available on the HR21 or HR22 at the moment.
> # Only available via DIRECTV on Demand at the moment (Channel 1080)
> ...


That's true for outputting 1080p. Though there is significant discussion over the differences in compression and sound quality. It seems the movie was given less compression and a 5.1 soundtrack as opposed to the 1080i version. The 1080p even when viewed as converted as 1080i has some advantages.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> The one 1080p Vod program, looks damn good.


Thank You ! !


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

What I would really love to know is the size of the 1080p24 version of _The Bucket List_ versus the 1080i version, as recorded on the HR20.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> P.S. Your post indicates that you'd expect the HRxx to convert 1080p/24 to 1080i/60 and that somehow this is preferred to 1080p/24 with a pulldown applied to 1080p/60.


What I'm saying is that if your display needs a 60hz input, pulldown is going to be needed regardless of where it's applied. So it makes more sense to do the pulldown at your end (in the DVR), then de-interlace that if necessessary, than to apply pulldown in the front end, introducing a pulldown even for those who don't need it. The whole point in sending out movies in 24p is it's the most efficient method to do so, as it's the native format for most movies. What you seem to be suggesting is for them to convert movies to 60p before transmitting them.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Is this for HR20 with CE's only? Or can I force download the update on my receiver?


Hello?!?! I need an answer to my question. Also, when I push play on that movie, all I got was a black screen. Why?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Hello?!?! I need an answer to my question. Also, when I push play on that movie, all I got was a black screen. Why?


My guess is CE's only, as only they have the ability to download the beta stuff.

Having said that, it sounds like you actually are able to download something. Are you a CE?

If not, perhaps the black screen indicates that you do not have the software to view 1080p.

It could also be that you have not enabled 1080p in the set up screen where you tell the DVR which resolutions your TV can handle. If you did that, and do not have a 1080p Tv, then you would also get a black screen if your DVR is sending a 1080p signal.

Or it could be what 'harsh' said in an earlier post:

"My guess is that 1080p VOD won't be available to displays that can't handle 1080p/24 natively. This may include some TVs that claim to be 1080p capable."

:nono:


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> What I'm saying is that if your display needs a 60hz input, pulldown is going to be needed regardless of where it's applied. So it makes more sense to do the pulldown at your end (in the DVR), then de-interlace that if necessessary, than to apply pulldown in the front end, introducing a pulldown even for those who don't need it. The whole point in sending out movies in 24p is it's the most efficient method to do so, as it's the native format for most movies. What you seem to be suggesting is for them to convert movies to 60p before transmitting them.


No, sorry, I guess that's where the confusion came from. I'm not really suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that since most displays can't handle 24p, this 1080p idea is ill-concieved if it's only going to be 1080p/24, period.

For the vast majority of 1080p HDTV owners, one of two things needs to be the case in order for this to make any sense; either (a) the material is 1080p/24 from the interwebs to the HRxx, then the user can tell the HRxx to leave it alone and pass it at 24p or to apply the pulldown and output it at 60p; OR (b) if the HRxx is incapable of doing the pulldown, then the material is 1080p/60 from the interwebs. I don't see any other choices if DirecTV wants to actually give its subscribers 1080p content in a format most of them can actually use.

--Mav


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

It is available for anyone to download. It might or might not be playable in 1080i on a HR21 or a HR20 with the national release. With my HR20 running the CE, I am able to play it in 1080i or 720p. When I set native on, it fails HDMI negotiation with my (non-1080p-capable) HD set and reverts to 1080i.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> It is available for anyone to download. It might or might not be playable in 1080i on a HR21 or a HR20 with the national release. With my HR20 running the CE, I am able to play it in 1080i or 720p. When I set native on, it fails HDMI negotiation with my (non-1080p-capable) HD set and reverts to 1080i.


It is available to play as 1080i on the national release. By this I mean you download the 1080p version and play it back with native off set to 1080i output. I suspect you may have to turn native off if you are running the national release, since only the CE has 1080p. As I always avoid Native On, this was not an issue for me.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> I don't see any other choices if DirecTV wants to actually give its subscribers 1080p content in a format most of them can actually use.
> 
> --Mav


The choice for those whose sets don't properly display 1080p24 is 1080i60. This is exactly what the DVR does now. A set that won't properly display 1080p24 but has 1080 resolution will definitely show 1080i.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> The choice for those whose sets don't properly display 1080p24 is 1080i60. This is exactly what the DVR does now. A set that won't properly display 1080p24 but has 1080 resolution will definitely show 1080i.


So, then you're saying that for the vast majority of 1080p HDTV owners out there, we're plumb out of luck. Although, that sort of begs this question: Isn't a 3:2 (or 2:3; again, I don't remember which) pulldown process required to go from 1080p24 to 1080i60? If so and if we know the HRxx can do that, then why can't it do 1080p24 to 1080p60?

--Mav


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> So, then you're saying that for the vast majority of 1080p HDTV owners out there, we're plumb out of luck. Although, that sort of begs this question: Isn't a 3:2 (or 2:3; again, I don't remember which) pulldown process required to go from 1080p24 to 1080i60? If so and if we know the HRxx can do that, then why can't it do 1080p24 to 1080p60?
> 
> --Mav


I want to point something out. If they can make 1080p work in a way that it is compatible with 1080i or 720p users and if the bandwidth/size of file is about the same, they can deliver all PPV HD in 1080p and not duplicate progamming or have the user need to understand what they need to record/download.

At worst, they can be looking at improving PQ for those can make use of it while simplifying the data choices. (And, I did notice some improvement on the 1080p versus 1080i downloads of the same movie even though I cannot accept 1080p input.)


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> So, then you're saying that for the vast majority of 1080p HDTV owners out there, we're plumb out of luck.


I guess I'm just not doing a good job of saying what I'm trying to say. But no, you aren't any more out of luck than you already are by having a set that can't properly handle a 24p input. No, you don't get any benefit out of the 24p programs (beyond the fact that it may look better if they use the same amount of bandwidth but it compresses better because the source is progressive), but you wouldn't get any benefit it they gave it to you as 1080p60 either. That's because of your TV, and nothing they do will change that. But you shouldn't lose anything either. Whether it's sent to your TV as progressive, or sent interlaced then de-interlaced by your TV, it's all the same (unless your TV has a poor deinterlacer). For YOU, given that your set can't handle 24p, the end result should be the same whether they send 24p then interlace it, or if they give you 60p.



> Although, that sort of begs this question: Isn't a 3:2 (or 2:3; again, I don't remember which) pulldown process required to go from 1080p24 to 1080i60? If so and if we know the HRxx can do that, then why can't it do 1080p24 to 1080p60?


Yes, going from 24 to 60 requires 3:2 pulldown. But the HR likely can't do 1080p60 because it's not a common format, and because it requires a much higher pixel clock. Unless you have a SOURCE that is 1080p/60 (and again, that's going to be a very rare bird), there is no benefit in having the ability to handle 1080p/60. For sources that are matered in either 1080p/24, or 1080p/30, they can be output as 1080i/60 then de-interlaced in the set without loss.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> I guess I'm just not doing a good job of saying what I'm trying to say. But no, you aren't any more out of luck than you already are by having a set that can't properly handle a 24p input. No, you don't get any benefit out of the 24p programs (beyond the fact that it may look better if they use the same amount of bandwidth but it compresses better because the source is progressive), but you wouldn't get any benefit it they gave it to you as 1080p60 either. That's because of your TV, and nothing they do will change that. But you shouldn't lose anything either. Whether it's sent to your TV as progressive, or sent interlaced then de-interlaced by your TV, it's all the same (unless your TV has a poor deinterlacer). For YOU, given that your set can't handle 24p, the end result should be the same whether they send 24p then interlace it, or if they give you 60p.
> 
> Yes, going from 24 to 60 requires 3:2 pulldown. But the HR likely can't do 1080p60 because it's not a common format, and because it requires a much higher pixel clock. Unless you have a SOURCE that is 1080p/60 (and again, that's going to be a very rare bird), there is no benefit in having the ability to handle 1080p/60. For sources that are matered in either 1080p/24, or 1080p/30, they can be output as 1080i/60 then de-interlaced in the set without loss.


Thank you for saving a lot of typing for me, Darin. You said what I was about to.

The only thing I would like to add is that people have to understand that 1080p60 was mostly used to sell TVs. 1080p24 is very useful. 1080i60 is very useful. 1080p60 is largely marketing. The inherent advantages of 1080p for movies is only really there for 1080p24. Since a framerate of 24 is what is used in the source, 1080p60 gives you nothing that 1080i60 can't do very effectively. Will it support that snazzy mode that someone used to sell you the set? No. Will it really impact your viewing experience? No.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Many 1080p HDTV’s will *accept* a 1080p/24 input, but then use an internal 3:2 pulldown processor to convert it to the native 60fps of the panel.  In fact, some TV’s will have no mention at all of supporting a 1080p/24 input, but if they have a menu setting for “3:2 pulldown”, then it’s likely they will. 

Some newer and high-end 1080p sets do have native support for 1080p/24. They do no conversion on the frame rate. Each frame of the original 24fps source is displayed for the proper duration. Most do this by using a 48fps or 72 fps rate and then display the same source frame through two or three physical screen refreshes. 

In either case, it makes it possible for D* to deliver “1080p” even if the resulting picture on *your* set is no better than 720p or 1080i.


----------



## Smthkd (Sep 1, 2004)

My HP 65" DLP is 1080p capable as a matter of fact I watch all my movies on Bluray at 1080p24 but when I try to watch the 1080p test from D* I get bad flickering. The picture comes in for about half a second and go out 2 seconds. This repeats over and over!!!


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I just started the vod download of "The Bucket List" on my R22 to see what it will do.....


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

bobnielsen said:


> It took a bit over 15 hours, which is longer than 1.5 Mbps should require (although I don't know how large the file actually is). I checked speedtest.net immediately afterward and found that I was only getting 367 kbps! I guess my ISP must be cutting me back (when I checked again a few hours later the speed was back to normal). I use Clearwire Wi-Max, so bandwidth sharing might be a factor as well.


Some ISP's are throttling downloads like this, you may have been a victim of that little undocumented feature from your provider


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Forget 1080p/24 and 1080p/60. Now that many of the new TVs on the market have 120Hz refresh rates, when is DirecTV going to provide us with 1080p/120 programming?


----------



## CKNAV (Dec 26, 2005)

betterdan said:


> It isn't there anymore probably because he posted a link to the schedule an hour ago and now it no longer shows that schedule because it is in the past.
> 
> Here's how to find it, log in to your account then click Tv Schedule up top then click Directv On Demand. Now click the drop down box in the middle and change it from all channels to HD 1080P test channel. Click on the movie it shows (Bucket List, The) then click record to receiver.


How are you guys seeing the HD 1080 Test channel. I select Directv on Demand but do not see HD 1080 channel at all.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

CKNAV said:


> How are you guys seeing the HD 1080 Test channel. I select Directv on Demand but do not see HD 1080 channel at all.


You can find it in the online On Demand scheduler at http://www.directv.com. If you place the cursor on "TV Schedule" at the top, it will show up in the drop-down box.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Channel 1080 is now showing up as a selectable channel.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Forget 1080p/24 and 1080p/60. Now that many of the new TVs on the market have 120Hz refresh rates, when is DirecTV going to provide us with 1080p/120 programming?


No such programming exists anywhere.

The 120Hz refresh rate is used because it is a perfect multple of both 60 and 24. 60 fps shows have each frame displayed twice, and 24 fps shows have each frame displayed 5 times*, perfectly duplicating the original intended frame-rate with no judder.

*This is assuming the TV handles 24p correctly. Only a few 2007 and a bunch of 2008 model TVs do this.


----------



## muadib (Dec 23, 2007)

betterdan said:


> It isn't there anymore probably because he posted a link to the schedule an hour ago and now it no longer shows that schedule because it is in the past.
> 
> Here's how to find it, log in to your account then click Tv Schedule up top then click Directv On Demand. Now click the drop down box in the middle and change it from all channels to HD 1080P test channel. Click on the movie it shows (Bucket List, The) then click record to receiver.


This doesn't work either. I guess it really is gone.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Channel 1080 is now there -- I had to add it to my Favorites list.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Before everyone gets too far afield on what 1080p means, I feel compelled to point out that 1080p/60 is not defined for OTA broadcast. It is defined for DBS, but probably won't be used.

Possible ATSC OTA frame rates for 1080p video are:

23.976
24
29.97 (the actual NTSC frame rate)
30

While 60fps is defined for 720p OTA, it likely won't be used either.

The relevant ATSC standards are A/53 (Part 4) for OTA and A/81 for DBS.

I'm not sure whether DBS (or OTA for that matter) uses a frame rate of 29.97 or 30 (or both).

Note also that the field rate with 1080i is 60 fields per second which may allow the eye to make up for having the same image on display for 1/30th of a second at a whack. Those bothered by fluorescent lighting and DLP color wheels may appreciate this.

All of this kind of points to the idea that native mode is a pipe dream as evidenced by the number of televisions that can't handle unusual scan rates.


----------



## betterdan (May 23, 2007)

muadib said:


> This doesn't work either. I guess it really is gone.


Yep I just checked and I no longer see it online.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

harsh said:


> While 60fps is defined for 720p OTA, it likely won't be used either.


Huh? 60fps is what Fox, ABC, ESPN, etc., are all already using (well, technically, 59.94 fps). You are right that 60 FPS isn't a valid ATSC format for 1080x1920, but it is the typical nominal framerate for 720p. Even at twice the framerate, it still takes less bandwidth than 1080x1920 at 30fps.


----------



## lovswr (Jan 13, 2004)

For those of you who can now see Channel 1080, what is on it? Also what is the picture quality like?


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> I guess I'm just not doing a good job of saying what I'm trying to say. But no, you aren't any more out of luck than you already are by having a set that can't properly handle a 24p input. No, you don't get any benefit out of the 24p programs (beyond the fact that it may look better if they use the same amount of bandwidth but it compresses better because the source is progressive), but you wouldn't get any benefit it they gave it to you as 1080p60 either. That's because of your TV, and nothing they do will change that. But you shouldn't lose anything either. Whether it's sent to your TV as progressive, or sent interlaced then de-interlaced by your TV, it's all the same (unless your TV has a poor deinterlacer). For YOU, given that your set can't handle 24p, the end result should be the same whether they send 24p then interlace it, or if they give you 60p.


I guess I'm not doing a good job explaining either! HA! Let's take it as a given that the VAST majority of 1080p HDTVs currently in circulation made before the 2008 model year cannot properly handle 1080p/24 (because that's true). Let's also assume (because you may very well be right on this; I just don't know) that the highest quality resolution the HRxx can output in a format that can be handled by those TVs is 1080i/60 (1080p/60 or 1080p/30 apparently being beyond the capabilities of the HRxx; again, I'm not questioning you on this). Assuming that to be the case, then offering content in 1080p/24 is pointless to the vast majority of 1080p HDTV owners out there between (a) 1080p/24 content "converted" by the HRxx to 1080i/60 and (b) 1080i/60 content output by the HRxx natively. So, really, we (we being the majority of 1080p HDTV owners) ARE plumb out of luck and the additon of 1080p/24 gets us nowhere. Right?



> Yes, going from 24 to 60 requires 3:2 pulldown. But the HR likely can't do 1080p60 because it's not a common format, and because it requires a much higher pixel clock. Unless you have a SOURCE that is 1080p/60 (and again, that's going to be a very rare bird), there is no benefit in having the ability to handle 1080p/60. For sources that are matered in either 1080p/24, or 1080p/30, they can be output as 1080i/60 then de-interlaced in the set without loss.


Thanks. That's helpful.

--Mav

P.S. For those of you who were asking the question, I have an HR20-700 with the latest NR (no CE) and was able to d/l and watch Bucket List last night. When I had "native on", it put it in 720p. When I had "native off", it put it in whatever format I asked it to -- including 1080i.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Maverickster said:


> When I had "native on", it put it in 720p.


That certainly wasn't expected!


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> That certainly wasn't expected!


His TV negotiated 720p. This is part of the same reason that his TV didn't negotiate 1080p24.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> So, really, we (we being the majority of 1080p HDTV owners) ARE plumb out of luck and the additon of 1080p/24 gets us nowhere. Right?


No. 1080p24 the format gets you nowhere because your TV doesn't support it. The less compression they used to produce the 1080p24 content and the 5.1 channel surround are definite advantages, even if you watch them in 1080i.

DirecTV can't make your TV do something that it won't. But you can still gain some benefits by cleaner material and a better soundtrack.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> No. 1080p24 the format gets you nowhere because your TV doesn't support it. The less compression they used to produce the 1080p24 content and the 5.1 channel surround are definite advantages, even if you watch them in 1080i.
> 
> DirecTV can't make your TV do something that it won't. But you can still gain some benefits by cleaner material and a better soundtrack.


Right. Understood. My point is that my TV is less than a year old and is representative of the vast majority of 1080p TVs out there. It's a Panasonic 58PZ700U -- Panasonic's flagship model for the 2007 model year. Short of buying a Kuro, I can't think of any TV I could have bought (until the 2008s were released, anyway) that would not have had this problem. And that's my point. Again, most Bluray players handle this widely-known limitation by giving the user the option of having it output at 1080p/24 or 1080p/60.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Assuming that to be the case, then offering content in 1080p/24 is pointless to the vast majority of 1080p HDTV owners out there between (a) 1080p/24 content "converted" by the HRxx to 1080i/60 and (b) 1080i/60 content output by the HRxx natively. So, really, we (we being the majority of 1080p HDTV owners) ARE plumb out of luck and the additon of 1080p/24 gets us nowhere. Right?


From my perspective, the advantages are:
It compresses better (so you either get higher quality in the same bandwidth, or the same quality in less bandwidth); you give those (admittedly few) customers native format (was HD a waste when a only a very small percentage had HD equipment?); and of course, marketing.

Personally, I think anything that improves compression efficiency is worth persuing. If that also delivers a native signal an admittedly small perdentage of customers who can properly use it, then that's just icing. As time goes on, that group will grow.



> When I had "native on", it put it in 720p.


That's interesting. Hard to know at this point if that's simply a software issue (units not yet updated to show some kind of modified LED combo to indicate 1080p), or if the content actually was 720p. When in native mode, did your display also indicate it was getting a 720p signal?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Short of buying a Kuro, I can't think of any TV I could have bought (until the 2008s were released, anyway) that would not have had this problem. And that's my point.


Well that's a problem for the TV manufacturers to solve, but hopefully as more content becomes available in 24p, and more consumers become aware that their sets aren't capable of properly displaying it, the market will drive them to do something about it.

Here is a list of displays that are reported to properly handle 1080p. There are quite a few, but they do tend to be higher end units. FWIW, it's not even fair to assume the 2008 units fix the issue. I just ordered a 2008 Mits DLP set, and there aren't ANY RP sets on the list. So not only can my old set not handle it, my new one that I haven't even received yet probably won't either (at least it's not reported to). But I still think it's worthwhile to send 24fps content in 24p.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> From my perspective, the advantages are:
> It compresses better (so you either get higher quality in the same bandwidth, or the same quality in less bandwidth); you give those (admittedly few) customers native format (was HD a waste when a only a very small percentage had HD equipment?); and of course, marketing.
> 
> Personally, I think anything that improves compression efficiency is worth persuing. If that also delivers a native signal an admittedly small perdentage of customers who can properly use it, then that's just icing. As time goes on, that group will grow.


All good points, although I wonder which would result in a better PQ: 1080p/24 source "converted" by the HRxx to 1080i/60 or 1080i/60 source not converted by the HRxx at all....



> That's interesting. Hard to know at this point if that's simply a software issue (units not yet updated to show some kind of modified LED combo to indicate 1080p), or if the content actually was 720p. When in native mode, did your display also indicate it was getting a 720p signal?


Actually, I don't know the answer to that. I'll take a look when I get home. I actually didn't look at the HRxx to see what the lights said; I just looked at what the TV told me (which was 720p). There are a whole host of variables here, though. My receiver takes everything lower than 720p and upconverts it to 720p (no way to turn that off -- in market for new receiver); it passes 720p, 1080i and 1080p natively; so I suppose, it's possible the HRxx was outputting anywhere between 480i and 720p. I'll take a look when I get home to see what "the lights say" it's outputting.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Well that's a problem for the TV manufacturers to solve, but hopefully as more content becomes available in 24p, and more consumers become aware that their sets aren't capable of properly displaying it, the market will drive them to do something about it.
> 
> Here is a list of displays that are reported to properly handle 1080p. There are quite a few, but they do tend to be higher end units. FWIW, it's not even fair to assume the 2008 units fix the issue. I just ordered a 2008 Mits DLP set, and there aren't ANY RP sets on the list. So not only can my old set not handle it, my new one that I haven't even received yet probably won't either (at least it's not reported to). But I still think it's worthwhile to send 24fps content in 24p.


Well, "quite a few" is relative. There are "quite a few" CURRENT MODEL YEAR sets (the bulk of which are LCDs), but the prior model year list is extremely short -- a couple of projectors, the Kuro plasmas, and the Samsung LCDs (18 sets total). My set is a "higher end unit" and doesn't do it. A 2008 Mitsubishi DLP is a "higher end unit" and doesn't seem to do it. And that's my point.

--Mav


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

The point we are trying to make is that 1080p24 gives those sets that support it a chance at a native format. For other sets, it is a fairly straightforward transition to 1080i60. You are not missing anything by getting 1080i60 as opposed to 1080p60 if the source is 1080p24.

You are not being cheated out of picture quality in this transition. The Blu-Ray player can put it out in 1080p60 because it has a lot less to do than the HR20. If you are getting the same (or extremely, extremely similar) picture from 1080i60, why do you care?

The frustration should be at the TV manufacturers that failed to produce sets that processed the signals.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

gregjones said:


> If you are getting the same (or extremely, extremely similar) picture from 1080i60, why do you care?
> 
> The frustration should be at the TV manufacturers that failed to produce sets that processed the signals.


I agree with both,
It was hard to tell if there was any difference as I watched it in 1080i & the 1080p/24 converted to 1080p/60,
and I'm pissed at Sony.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> The frustration should be at the TV manufacturers that failed to produce sets that processed the signals.


Yes, I just don't understand why there are so many 120hz models out there that still do a 3:2 pulldown instead of a proper 5:5. It really is just plain dumb to not take advantage of the 120hz refresh.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> You are not being cheated out of picture quality in this transition. The Blu-Ray player can put it out in 1080p60 because it has a lot less to do than the HR20. If you are getting the same (or extremely, extremely similar) picture from 1080i60, why do you care?


Because it's being billed as 1080p when, in fact, for owners of virtually every 1080p TV manufactured prior to the current model year, it's not.



> The frustration should be at the TV manufacturers that failed to produce sets that processed the signals.


Agreed, but they aren't the ones advertising VOD in 1080p when, again, it's not for the vast majority of their subscriber base.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Because it's being billed as 1080p when, in fact, for owners of virtually every 1080p TV manufactured prior to the current model year, it's not.


So is it improper to label channels as HD when most customers don't have HD equipment? I just don't understand what DirecTV is doing wrong here... they are delivering the content in the _proper_ format: the native format. It's not their fault that so many TV manufacturers don't support it properly. But with Blu-ray and DirecTV and Dish offering 24p, perhaps the awareness will be raised, and sets designed properly. I just don't understand what else you would prefer DirecTV to do, and why? There is NOTHING they could do that would give you better results with your TV, and you may still benefit from the compression efficiency. Why deny the few that DO have TVs that can take full advantage of it?


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> I just don't understand what else you would prefer DirecTV to do, and why? There is NOTHING they could do that would give you better results with your TV, and you may still benefit from the compression efficiency.


Not true. Bluray players give you the option of 1080p/24 or 1080p/60 (for compatibility reasons) if the source is 1080p/24, so should DirecTV. That's all I'm saying.

--Mav


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Maverickster said:


> Because it's being billed as 1080p when, in fact, for owners of virtually every 1080p TV manufactured prior to the current model year, it's not.
> 
> Agreed, but they aren't the ones advertising VOD in 1080p when, again, it's not for the vast majority of their subscriber base.
> 
> --Mav


Not true... it is 1080P. The fact that some equipment doesn't support it is irrelevant. DirecTV is broadcasting a 1080P/24 signal. Period. Its up to the consumer as to whether or not their equipment can process the signal.

Be mad at the TV manufacturers - not DirecTV. My TV can only "read" 1080P/24 - its converting it to 1080P/60. But I'm not going to scream @ DirecTV for sending out 1080P/24 since my TV has to convert it.

I'm sure people with 720P sets are just as upset. When they bought their set, no one told them DirecTV would be broadcasting 1080P. Everyone (up until 3-4 weeks ago) vehemently stated we won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon... Ooops! 

Chris


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Maverickster said:


> Not true. Bluray players give you the option of 1080p/24 or 1080p/60 (for compatibility reasons) if the source is 1080p/24, so should DirecTV. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> --Mav


Does the HR2x have a 3:2 pulldown scaling option? Can the HR2x output 1080P/60? Does DirecTV have the bandwidth to send 1080P/60? I believe the answer to all 3 questions is ... No...

So - would you rather take 1080P away from those of us that can use it - simply because some TV manufacturers failed to include a decode for a popular version of 1080P signal transmission?

Chris


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Not true. Bluray players give you the option of 1080p/24 or 1080p/60 (for compatibility reasons) if the source is 1080p/24, so should DirecTV.


But that won't necessarily give you better results, unless your TV doesn't de-interlace properly. If you switch your Blu-ray player between 1080p/60, and 1080i, do you see any difference?


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> Not true... it is 1080P. The fact that some equipment doesn't support it is irrelevant. DirecTV is broadcasting a 1080P/24 signal. Period. Its up to the consumer as to whether or not their equipment can process the signal.


That's not exactly true. DirecTV's equipment will be outputting 1080i/60 for those TVs (again, the majority) that don't "do" 1080p/24, when the "proper" (imo, anyway) way to deal with this compatibility problem is the way Bluray players do it -- 1080p/60.



> Everyone (up until 3-4 weeks ago) vehemently stated we won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon... Ooops!


Well, I didn't think so either, but I did think they'd try to capitalize on 1080p (although, admittedly, I didn't see it happening this way): http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=117253

--Mav

Edited: Didn't finish a sentence!


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> Does the HR2x have a 3:2 pulldown scaling option? Can the HR2x output 1080P/60? Does DirecTV have the bandwidth to send 1080P/60? I believe the answer to all 3 questions is ... No...


I think the answer to the first question must be "yes" if it can take 1080p/24 and make it 1080i/60. The answer to the second question is really what this boils down to, I think; and I don't think we know the answer to that. The answer to the third question appears to be "no", but that's neither here nor there (depending on the answer to the second question).



> So - would you rather take 1080P away from those of us that can use it - simply because some TV manufacturers failed to include a decode for a popular version of 1080P signal transmission?


Absolutely not. I'm not advocating that they take it away; I'm advocating for 1080p/60 as the "compatibility" option for those of us who can't do 1080p/24...if that makes any sense.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Maverickster said:


> I think the answer to the first question must be "yes" if it can take 1080p/24 and make it 1080i/60.


1080P/60 is very different requirements from 1080i/60. I don't think it can process 1080P/60 and output it, much less do a conversion from 1080P/24 to 1080P/60. Again, 1080P/24 to 1080i/60 is very very different...

Chris


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> But that won't necessarily give you better results, unless your TV doesn't de-interlace properly. If you switch your Blu-ray player between 1080p/60, and 1080i, do you see any difference?


Not generally, no (although I do occassionally see interlacing artifacting on my Oppo when it's in 1080i as opposed to 1080p). But you can't really be telling me that you think you're going to get the exact same result from introducing an unnecessary round of interlacing/deinterlacing (1080p/24 to 1080i/60 to 1080p/60) that you would if it were just 1080p/24 to 1080p/60 with no intermediate interlacing/deinterlacing, right? That doesn't make sense.

--Mav


----------



## ooferomen (Mar 15, 2007)

if they are outputting 1080p24 at 1080i60 then the only thing stopping them from outputting at 1080p60 would be the bandwidth of the TMDS and i'm pretty sure 165mhz has been standard for quite some time


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> 1080P/60 is very different requirements from 1080i/60. I don't think it can process 1080P/60 and output it, much less do a conversion from 1080P/24 to 1080P/60. Again, 1080P/24 to 1080i/60 is very very different...


Oh, I agree that they're very different. No argument there. I was just answering the pulldown question -- which I think would have to be done in any case. We know it can do the 1080p/24 to 1080i/60 process (I saw it do it last night). As for whether it can actually do the 1080p/24 to 1080p/60 process, I don't know, but I think it (or its replacement) should if they intend to really market this as 1080p at this point.

--Mav


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Oh, I agree that they're very different. No argument there. I was just answering the pulldown question -- which I think would have to be done in any case. We know it can do the 1080p/24 to 1080i/60 process (I saw it do it last night). As for whether it can actually do the 1080p/24 to 1080p/60 process, I don't know, but I think it (or its replacement) should if they intend to really market this as 1080p at this point.
> 
> --Mav


You are not listening. For source with a framerate of 24 (almost all films), there is no advantage of moving it to 1080p60. ZERO. You are asking them to do something simply so they can call it 1080p60. They delivered 1080p.

There is no point whatsoever in them delivering 1080p60 on this material. It will provide no advantage whatsoever. 1080p24 would have some advantages, but your TV doesn't do that. You are arguing a point because you don't like that you were told the best thing about your TV was the fact that it does 1080p. Your Blu-Ray player is doing something, but that doesn't mean DirecTV has to or should.

The marketing hype around 1080p has been far too successful in spite of the fact that only 1080p24 is really all that important. 1080p120 is only important if it is done correctly. 1080p60 is largely irrelevant.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> But you can't really be telling me that you think you're going to get the exact same result from introducing an unnecessary round of interlacing/deinterlacing (1080p/24 to 1080i/60 to 1080p/60) that you would if it were just 1080p/24 to 1080p/60 with no intermediate interlacing/deinterlacing, right? That doesn't make sense.


Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm telling you, and what I've been trying to communicate all along (however unsuccessfully). Assuming progressive content is properly interlaced, then subsequently de-interlaced, the end result will be EXACTLY the same as the original source.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> You are not listening. For source with a framerate of 24 (almost all films), there is no advantage of moving it to 1080p60. ZERO. You are asking them to do something simply so they can call it 1080p60. They delivered 1080p.


No, I think you're missing the point. There is an advantage to 1080p/60. The advantage is compatibility with the vast majority of 1080p TVs currently in circulation by delivering true 1080p in a format those TVs can use. How you're missing this very simple point escapes me. You can say 1080i/60 is "good enough" all you want, but the fact remains that it's not 1080p. You can also say that 1080p/24 is 1080p, and that's right, but it's a format that very few 1080p TVs in circulation prior to the 2008 model year can handle, so that's a problem. Manufacturers of components which provide 1080p material HAVE ALREADY SOLVED THIS ISSUE by giving the user a choice of outputing the 1080p/24 material in its native format (if your display can handle it) or selecting 1080p/60.

Why is it too much for me to ask DirecTV to implement the same standardized method of handling this problem if they're going to advertise 1080p content?



> There is no point whatsoever in them delivering 1080p60 on this material. It will provide no advantage whatsoever. 1080p24 would have some advantages, but your TV doesn't do that. You are arguing a point because you don't like that you were told the best thing about your TV was the fact that it does 1080p. Your Blu-Ray player is doing something, but that doesn't mean DirecTV has to or should.
> 
> The marketing hype around 1080p has been far too successful in spite of the fact that only 1080p24 is really all that important. 1080p120 is only important if it is done correctly. 1080p60 is largely irrelevant.


You've come back to this point a couple of times, but you have no idea why I bought the TV I bought. I bought into exactly zero marketing hype. I bought it because at 58", 1080p is a dramatic improvement over 768p, and 10 short months ago it was, hands down, the best available TV on the market short of a Kuro, and I got a seriously good deal. It has absolutely nothing to do with marketing hype.

1080p60 is relevant for one purpose and one purpose only -- to deliver 1080p content to 1080p TVs that can't do 1080p/24 (the majority of them) in a 1080p format rather than a format (1080i/60) which will invariably introduce unnecessary problems since it will take a progressive source, interlace it, and then deinterlace it again before you get to see it.

That's the point you keep missing.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm telling you, and what I've been trying to communicate all along (however unsuccessfully). Assuming progressive content is properly interlaced, then subsequently de-interlaced, the end result will be EXACTLY the same as the original source.


I have an extremely difficult time believing that introducing two unnecessary video processing steps into the chain -- steps that are notorious for causing problems no less -- will be as consistent and good as a chain that has no such steps. IMHO, the only way to do this "right" is to do it the way Bluray players have been doing it -- 1080p/24 source, user option of 1080p/24 or 1080p/60 output. But, then again, I've said that already...

...guess we'll just have to see what they do. 

--Mav


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

And if the material was actually created with a framerate of 60 you would be correct. Some video games actually create the content with a framerate of 60. But films are not created with this framerate.

Watching a move with a framerate of 60 means it was already converted. The promised land of 1080p is specifically 1080p24. I understand what you are saying, but it is incorrect. The extra frames per second are only valuable if the source material has them. Otherwise you would be getting repeated frames that added no value at all to the picture. The point you keep missing is that the 30 frames per second delivered by 1080i are sufficient to show you all of the picture data that was in the original material. Compatibility is not relevant because there's no data in the other 36 frames per second in 1080p60 versus 1080p24.

If studios started filming content in 60 fps, I would agree with you completely.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> You can say 1080i/60 is "good enough" all you want, but the fact remains that it's not 1080p.


And the fact remains that if that 1080i came from a progressive source, and if it was properly interlaced and subsequently de-interlaced, it would be EXACTLY the same as the progressive source, pixel for pixel. I don't understand how two things can be exactly the same, yet one not be as good as the other. :shrug:


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> And the fact remains that if that 1080i came from a progressive source, and if it was properly interlaced and subsequently de-interlaced, it would be EXACTLY the same as the progressive source, pixel for pixel. I don't understand how two things can be exactly the same, yet one not be as good as the other. :shrug:


Because they aren't exactly the same...one is interlaced then deinterlaced, the other isn't. It's the additional processing (particularly THAT processing) that is notorious for introducing problems. Again, though, guess we'll just have to see what they do.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> And if the material was actually created with a framerate of 60 you would be correct. Some video games actually create the content with a framerate of 60. But films are not created with this framerate.
> 
> Watching a move with a framerate of 60 means it was already converted. The promised land of 1080p is specifically 1080p24. I understand what you are saying, but it is incorrect. The extra frames per second are only valuable if the source material has them. Otherwise you would be getting repeated frames that added no value at all to the picture. The point you keep missing is that the 30 frames per second delivered by 1080i are sufficient to show you all of the picture data that was in the original material. Compatibility is not relevant because there's no data in the other 36 frames per second in 1080p60 versus 1080p24.
> 
> If studios started filming content in 60 fps, I would agree with you completely.


Agreed, the "extra frames per second" are not valuable if you have a display that can accept a 24p source...where they're valuable is in filling in the blanks to feed displays that can't accept 24p sources in a manner that does not introduce the problems inherent to unnecessarily interlacing/deinterlacing. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> I have an extremely difficult time believing that introducing two unnecessary video processing steps into the chain -- steps that are notorious for causing problems no less -- will be as consistent and good as a chain that has no such steps.


Then honestly, without any intent of being snippy, I suggest you research it a bit. It may put your mind at ease (since you are obviously very concerned). Interlacing and de-interlacing is a very straightforward process. You take all odd lines of a frame and send them as the 1st field, take all the even lines and send them as the second field, then at the receiving end you just put them back together. THIS is not hard to do. When you talk about "notorious" problems, I would guess you are confusing de-interlacing an interlaced source, vs. de-interlacing a progressive source that has subsequently been interlaced. In the first case (native interlaced content), there is a time offset between the 1st frame and 2nd frame. Therefore, if you just put them back together as a single progressive frame, anything that moved from the first frame to the second frame is going to have have "jaggies" that represent that movement. There is no way to perfectly put that back together, because the hardware has to "guess" what the missing lines would have contained. So some de-interlacers are better than others, because of the different ways they try to mimic the missing information. Just like scaling... you can't perfectly guess what the missing pixels would have contained, but some scalers make a better looking estimate than others. BUT, if the source was progressive, there is no time offset between the two fields that are derived from the single progressive frame. The two can just be put back together as-is.



> IMHO, the only way to do this "right" is to do it the way Bluray players have been doing it -- 1080p/24 source, user option of 1080p/24 or 1080p/60 output.


It does have the advantage of taking out the variable of a downstream de-interlacer that could potentially do something wrong. But as I said, the process is fairly simple, and most displays don't have a problem doing THIS PART correctly. Properly handling the framerate conversion is another matter completely. But in your case, framerate isn't the issue.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Because they aren't exactly the same...one is interlaced then deinterlaced, the other isn't.


No, I was comparing the end results... a 24p signal directly converted to 60p, and a 24p signal converted to a 60i signal, then de-interlaced to a 60p signal. The two 60p signals should be EXACTLY the same. Except in the rare case of an interlacer and/or de-interlacer that does not handle this simple conversion correctly.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Then honestly, without any intent of being snippy, I suggest you research it a bit. It may put your mind at ease (since you are obviously very concerned). Interlacing and de-interlacing is a very straightforward process. You take all odd lines of a frame and send them as the 1st field, take all the even lines and send them as the second field, then at the receiving end you just put them back together. THIS is not hard to do. When you talk about "notorious" problems, I would guess you are confusing de-interlacing an interlaced source, vs. de-interlacing a progressive source that has subsequently been interlaced. In the first case (native interlaced content), there is a time offset between the 1st frame and 2nd frame. Therefore, if you just put them back together as a single progressive frame, anything that moved from the first frame to the second frame is going to have have "jaggies" that represent that movement. There is no way to perfectly put that back together, because the hardware has to "guess" what the missing lines would have contained. So some de-interlacers are better than others, because of the different ways they try to mimic the missing information. Just like scaling... you can't perfectly guess what the missing pixels would have contained, but some scalers make a better looking estimate than others. BUT, if the source was progressive, there is no time offset between the two fields that are derived from the single progressive frame. The two can just be put back together as-is.
> 
> It does have the advantage of taking out the variable of a downstream de-interlacer that could potentially do something wrong. But as I said, the process is fairly simple, and most displays don't have a problem doing THIS PART correctly. Properly handling the framerate conversion is another matter completely. But in your case, framerate isn't the issue.


Right. The problem is that if we go the 1080p/24 to 1080i/60 to 1080p/60 route of getting from point A to point B, it's the HRxx doing the interlacing and the TV doing the deinterlacing, so as far as the TV's concerned it IS deinterlacing an interlaced source, right? Enter the "notorious" interlacing/deinterlacing problems. The "cleaner" way of handling this is....HA! I almost said it again, but I won't. You know what I think.

I dunno. I understand what you're saying. But, I've made my point (albeit not well) -- that if they're going to do this in 1080p/24 (which they probably should), I think they should offer a 1080p/60 option so that those of us who don't have TVs that can handle 1080p/24 natively aren't stuck with 1080i/60 as our only option.

--Mav


----------



## ccsoftball7 (Apr 2, 2003)

So, DirecTV is doing 1080P VOD?


----------



## ooferomen (Mar 15, 2007)

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/

81% of 2007 model HDTVs cannot detect a 3:2 cadence for 1080i material, so unless you have one of the few sets that can, you are going to want 1080p60 output.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> as far as the TV's concerned it IS deinterlacing an interlaced source, right?


If your TV has a de-interlacer that is "advanced" enough to try to interpolate and fill in missing information (rather than just zip them back together), then I would like to think it's advanced enough to know when it shouldn't. But that's why I asked you if blu-ray content looked any different on your display if you set it for a 60i output vs. a 60p output. If so, then something is going wrong. You replied that you did notice problems from your Oppo player, but your oppo is an SD DVD player. SD DVDs are encoded as interlaced content, so that's not really a good test. Play back a 24p Blu-ray with both settings (60i, and 60p), and compare the results. That should show you whether or not to expect any degradation due to the extra interlace/de-interlace step. But if you DO have a problem, that is not representative of a vast majority of displays as you've been claiming. Most displays have no problems properly de-interlacing.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Since the source material is 1080p/24, the onus should be on the display manufacturers to accept it (and some do), not on Directv to convert it to something else. When I am ready to upgrade to a 1080p-capable display, this will be one of the criteria I will be looking for.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

DarinC said:


> And the fact remains that if that 1080i came from a progressive source, and if it was properly interlaced and subsequently de-interlaced, it would be EXACTLY the same as the progressive source, pixel for pixel. I don't understand how two things can be exactly the same, yet one not be as good as the other. :shrug:


Think what he is trying to say is it's not "scaled".. scaling requires guessing to make up the extra pixels that are missing.. Where as interlacing/deinterlacing the individual lines are identical to the source material.. As long as the equipment can do the interlacing/deinterlacing there won't be any errors in the picture.. all you are doing to deinterlace the image is putting the original lines back together..


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Since the source material is 1080p/24, the onus should be on the display manufacturers to accept it (and some do), not on Directv to convert it to something else. When I am ready to upgrade to a 1080p-capable display, this will be one of the criteria I will be looking for.


Agreed that the display manufacturers should make TVs that accept 1080p/24 (and more and more of them do now), but I think the onus is on DirecTV to make their device compatible with what is out there now and as discussed (and linked to by Darin, i think), most of what's out there now (i.e. before model year 2008) needs to be fed at 60.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> If your TV has a de-interlacer that is "advanced" enough to try to interpolate and fill in missing information (rather than just zip them back together), then I would like to think it's advanced enough to know when it shouldn't. But that's why I asked you if blu-ray content looked any different on your display if you set it for a 60i output vs. a 60p output. If so, then something is going wrong. You replied that you did notice problems from your Oppo player, but your oppo is an SD DVD player. SD DVDs are encoded as interlaced content, so that's not really a good test. Play back a 24p Blu-ray with both settings (60i, and 60p), and compare the results. That should show you whether or not to expect any degradation due to the extra interlace/de-interlace step. But if you DO have a problem, that is not representative of a vast majority of displays as you've been claiming. Most displays have no problems properly de-interlacing.


O.K. I don't recall ever having tried that before, so I'll try that and report back.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

ooferomen said:


> http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1107hook2/
> 
> 81% of 2007 model HDTVs cannot detect a 3:2 cadence for 1080i material, so unless you have one of the few sets that can, you are going to want 1080p60 output.


It's important to note that this is based on a native interlaced source. This isn't really relevant to a 24p source that was simply interlaced then de-interlaced. For this topic, we are talking about DirecTV sending movies... native 24p sources. You will note that in the same article, where they are talking about the work-arounds of doing the conversion in the players that handle it correctly:


> ... they will really only help if you like 1080i HD concert discs, as all movie-based discs are 1080p/24 natively.


In other words, you don't need the workaround on 1080p/24 content, as that's not typically a problem.

A relevant quote from that article:


> That's worth repeating. As far as film-based content is concerned, as long as the 1080i is deinterlaced properly, it will appear identical to the original 1080p content.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

DarinC said:


> If your TV has a de-interlacer that is "advanced" enough to try to interpolate and fill in missing information (rather than just zip them back together), then I would like to think it's advanced enough to know when it shouldn't. But that's why I asked you if blu-ray content looked any different on your display if you set it for a 60i output vs. a 60p output. If so, then something is going wrong. You replied that you did notice problems from your Oppo player, but your oppo is an SD DVD player. SD DVDs are encoded as interlaced content, so that's not really a good test. Play back a 24p Blu-ray with both settings (60i, and 60p), and compare the results. That should show you whether or not to expect any degradation due to the extra interlace/de-interlace step. But if you DO have a problem, that is not representative of a vast majority of displays as you've been claiming. Most displays have no problems properly de-interlacing.


Just tried your test on my sony 40"v3000 between 1080i and 1080p60 i seen no difference but 480i 480p, 480p was clearly better . 1080/p24 v 1080i 1080p no difference but what i was watching didn't have much motion. A bigger better tv might be a different story.Tested with a BD player.


----------



## ooferomen (Mar 15, 2007)

DarinC said:


> It's important to note that this is based on a native interlaced source. This isn't really relevant to a 24p source that was simply interlaced then de-interlaced. For this topic, we are talking about DirecTV sending movies... native 24p sources. You will note that in the same article, where they are talking about the work-arounds of doing the conversion in the players that handle it correctly:
> 
> In other words, you don't need the workaround on 1080p/24 content, as that's not typically a problem.
> 
> A relevant quote from that article:


you need to go back and re-read the article as it focuses on two separate areas. the first being deinterlacing of native interlaced sources and the second being the 3:2 pulldown removal of native progressive sources. the second part is what we are concerned about here, and its also where the majority of televisions fail.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

*DarinC* I think has made a good point.

Starting with progressive and "splitting it" into interlaced, then sending it digitally to the TV for "patching" back together, seems like almost a zero error end product.

Where as if the source was created interlaced and then was "patched" back together, clearly would have the ever so slight change between each frame, that could have some problems.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> *DarinC* I think has made a good point.
> 
> Starting with progressive and "splitting it" into interlaced, then sending it digitally to the TV for "patching" back together, seems like almost a zero error end product.
> 
> Where as if the source was created interlaced and then was "patched" back together, clearly would have the ever so slight change between each frame, that could have some problems.


And as we are specifically discussing feature films, the sources are somewhat homogenous. If we take the 1080p24 source as clean (which is the only way this discussion matters at all), this holds true. If the 1080p24 source is not clean, then you would only be losing the ability to see a poor-quality piece of content.

*Conjecture: *I believe this is a step forward. I hope that this coincides with HBO's noticeable tardiness in DirecTV VOD and lack of channel additions. Comments have been made that HBO was tweaking quality before releasing additional channels and that seems to coincide with this timeline very easily. It might be just a guess, but a 1080p24-sourced HBO would be very strong.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ccsoftball7 said:


> So, DirecTV is doing 1080P VOD?


Yes...


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Maverickster said:


> I think they should offer a 1080p/60 option so that those of us who don't have TVs that can handle 1080p/24 natively aren't stuck with 1080i/60 as our only option.
> 
> --Mav


I think some of the points are getting mixed up - but overall I agree with you.

1) 1080p/60 provides no "quality" or video advantage/improvement.
2) 1080p/60 is more compatible than 1080p/24 - in theory. Some 1080P TVs don't even accept any 1080P signals. They are display devices only.

However - the HR2x current gen cannot output 1080P/60. They can only do 1080P/24 output. Therefore, this is a wish list item and not really worth debating the should/would/why don't they. Its just going to have to be accepted until DirecTV makes a new generation model or tells us something that all evidence points against.

There is nothing that can be done today/tomorrow/next week. Only people with 1080P/24 Hz compatible TVs will see the 1080P programming. End of discussion. Sorry.

In terms of 1080P/60 as a broadcast method - no point in that until someone does sports or live action in 1080P/60 - which isn't on any plans that I've seen discussed. It would be a waste of bandwidth to upconvert 1080i/60 or 720P/60 to 1080P/60 simply for a compatibility purpose (which wouldn't work anyways because the HR2x couldn't output 1080P/60...)

Chris


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> However - the HR2x current gen cannot output 1080P/60. They can only do 1080P/24 output. Therefore, this is a wish list item and not really worth debating the should/would/why don't they. Its just going to have to be accepted until DirecTV makes a new generation model or tells us something that all evidence points against.


Do we know this for sure? I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything definitive on this issue. If this is true, you're correct that there's no sense talking about it except in the context of what the "next generation" receiver should have.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

ooferomen said:


> ... the second being the 3:2 pulldown removal of native progressive sources. the second part is what we are concerned about here, and its also where the majority of televisions fail.


But that is not how I read what they are testing. In the 3:2 pulldown test section, they specifically say their test material is an interlaced source. Besides, the issue being discussed is whether or not outputting (the 24p source) in 60p would provide a "better" signal than 60i. In either case, a 3:2 pulldown is required. The implication may be that _once the signal is interlaced_, the likelihood of screwing it up downstream increases. And that probably is true (but doesn't have to be if the display is doing it's part properly). But I still fail to see how that is DirecTV's fault. No one ever expected the DVRs to be able to output 24p. Now it seems they can provide a software update to do it, and we're mad because it won't output 60p to make up for the flaws of current displays?

A lot of current TVs can't provide proper cadence on 24fps material, and that sucks. Some TVs can't properly de-interlace, and that sucks too. But at least DirecTV is providing the content in the proper native source, so that the incentive is their to move towards TVs that handle this stuff properly. I have a big enough gripe with the HRs just doing DVR stuff right (recording my shows, not locking up or rebooting, etc.). I'm certainly not expecting it to pick up the slack where many current TVs are failing.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> *Do we know this for sure*? I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything definitive on this issue. If this is true, you're correct that there's no sense talking about it except in the context of what the "next generation" receiver should have.
> 
> --Mav


Somewhere in the forums, someone dug through the broadcom chip(s) used and 1080p/24 is all it/they will do.


----------



## ooferomen (Mar 15, 2007)

DarinC said:


> But that is not how I read what they are testing. In the 3:2 pulldown test section, they specifically say their test material is an interlaced source. Besides, the issue being discussed is whether or not outputting (the 24p source) in 60p would provide a "better" signal than 60i. In either case, a 3:2 pulldown is required. The implication may be that _once the signal is interlaced_, the likelihood of screwing it up downstream increases. And that probably is true (but doesn't have to be if the display is doing it's part properly). But I still fail to see how that is DirecTV's fault. No one ever expected the DVRs to be able to output 24p. Now it seems they can provide a software update to do it, and we're mad because it won't output 60p to make up for the flaws of current displays?
> 
> A lot of current TVs can't provide proper cadence on 24fps material, and that sucks. Some TVs can't properly de-interlace, and that sucks too. But at least DirecTV is providing the content in the proper native source, so that the incentive is their to move towards TVs that handle this stuff properly. I have a big enough gripe with the HRs just doing DVR stuff right (recording my shows, not locking up or rebooting, etc.). I'm certainly not expecting it to pick up the slack where many current TVs are failing.


their test source is a 24fps source telecined(3:2 pulldown) to 30fps. the same process the directv box would have to do to output at 1080i. the problem is when most tvs receive a 1080i signal it cannot determine which fields are suppose to be combined to reconstruct the original progressive frame, when two fields of differing frames are combined the effect is artifacts and loss of resolution.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

gregjones said:


> The point we are trying to make is that 1080p24 gives those sets that support it a chance at a native format. For other sets, it is a fairly straightforward transition to 1080i60. You are not missing anything by getting 1080i60 as opposed to 1080p60 if the source is 1080p24.


However straightforward the 1080p/24 to 1080i conversion may be, it currently isn't being done correctly in the HR20, and when the output mode of the HR20 is set to 1080i, the result is an inferior 1080i signal compared to what comes from the HR20 for source transmitted in native 1080i. Hopefully this is just because they are doing something wrong, and not a limitation of the HR20.



gregjones said:


> You are not being cheated out of picture quality in this transition. The Blu-Ray player can put it out in 1080p60 because it has a lot less to do than the HR20. If you are getting the same (or extremely, extremely similar) picture from 1080i60, why do you care?


That statement will only be true if they can fix the current problems with the 1080p/24 to 1080i conversion in the HR20.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

BudShark said:


> I'm sure people with 720P sets are just as upset. When they bought their set, no one told them DirecTV would be broadcasting 1080P. Everyone (up until 3-4 weeks ago) vehemently stated we won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon... Ooops!


No ooops. Everyone was talking about 1080p/60 which unlike 1080p/24, actually provides more temporal resolution than 1080i. 1080p/24 contains less temporal resolution than 1080i, which is why 1080p/24 doesn't really provide any big benefit, and why the people who said that you won't see 1080p/60 from any broadcaster are still correct, at least for now.


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

Oh my gosh, my head hurts from reading all of these posts. Blonde here, so forgive that fact that I understand absolutely none of this techo terminology. Two questions:

1) Are you all saying that the 1080P broadcasts expected from DTV will be via VOD only? Nothing from the regular Guide (like HBO 501, STARZ & other movie channels, etc.)?

2) I have a Sony 52XBR4. Will it be capable of receiving those types of broadcasts given all the technical stuff I just read?

TIA (for your patience)


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Somewhere in the forums, someone dug through the broadcom chip(s) used and 1080p/24 is all it/they will do.


The datasheet for the the BCM7401 chip says it will also do 1080p/30, but no mention of 1080p/60.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Janice805 said:


> Oh my gosh, my head hurts from reading all of these posts. Blonde here, so forgive that fact that I understand absolutely none of this techo terminology. Two questions:
> 
> 1) Are you all saying that the 1080P broadcasts expected from DTV will be via VOD only? Nothing from the regular Guide (like HBO 501, STARZ & other movie channels, etc.)?
> 
> ...


i will say:

1. yes
2. yes

but wait for more confirmation from others.


----------



## dbmaven (May 29, 2004)

I'll chime in with

1) Yes - _at the current time_, the only 1080p offerings from both DirecTV and DISH are 'on demand'. Doesn't mean it won't change in 2 years (or 2 months).

2) Yes - I believe I've seen it mentioned that the XBR4s can do /24


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

I am not in the CE program. But want to try this 1080p movie, since I have done so through DISH 722 receiver and examined I Am Legend 1080p movie.

Is this 1080p download still abailable? If so is it still only for HR20s? I have one HR20 but it is hooked up to a 1080i RPTV. I hope this is available to the HR21s since I have one connected to my 50" 1080p Panny plasma. My DISH 722 is connected to the same TV but there was an issue with the 722 that after testing the Panny the 722 sent out a 1250i50Hz European signal, had to be corrected to watch the movie.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> I am not in the CE program. But want to try this 1080p movie, since I have done so through DISH 722 receiver and examined I Am Legend 1080p movie.
> 
> Is this 1080p download still abailable? If so is it still only for HR20s? I have one HR20 but it is hooked up to a 1080i RPTV. I hope this is available to the HR21s since I have one connected to my 50" 1080p Panny plasma. My DISH 722 is connected to the same TV but there was an issue with the 722 that after testing the Panny the 722 sent out a 1250i50Hz European signal, had to be corrected to watch the movie.


The notes in the beginning say the HR20 only at this time. I tried my HR21-100 on a Mits that does 1080p/24 which works with the PS3 but locked up the HR21 with I tried it.

While the movie on DoD is still there you need the CE software level that was available last weekend on the HR20 before trying to play it, try to grab this weeks download if you still want to try it.


----------



## eandras (Feb 16, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> No, I think you're missing the point. There is an advantage to 1080p/60. The advantage is compatibility with the vast majority of 1080p TVs currently in circulation by delivering true 1080p in a format those TVs can use. How you're missing this very simple point escapes me. You can say 1080i/60 is "good enough" all you want, but the fact remains that it's not 1080p. You can also say that 1080p/24 is 1080p, and that's right, but it's a format that very few 1080p TVs in circulation prior to the 2008 model year can handle, so that's a problem. Manufacturers of components which provide 1080p material HAVE ALREADY SOLVED THIS ISSUE by giving the user a choice of outputing the 1080p/24 material in its native format (if your display can handle it) or selecting 1080p/60.
> 
> Why is it too much for me to ask DirecTV to implement the same standardized method of handling this problem if they're going to advertise 1080p content?
> 
> ...


I understand what you are saying. You should actually be bringing this up with your TV manufacturer. They should be able to have the TV that was advertised as 1080P do all the requirements that are available. Panasonic, Sony, and all the others should do a firmware upgrade to meet the requirement for 1080P. This is not a Directv problem. Your Bluray DVD player follows a standard set by Sony. The BluRay standard was designed around Sony's displays that had some that could do 24FPS and some that could do 60 FPS that is why you have the choice of the 24 and 60 fps.


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

eandras said:


> I understand what you are saying. You should actually be bringing this up with your TV manufacturer. They should be able to have the TV that was advertised as 1080P do all the requirements that are available. Panasonic, Sony, and all the others should do a firmware upgrade to meet the requirement for 1080P. This is not a Directv problem. Your Bluray DVD player follows a standard set by Sony. The BluRay standard was designed around Sony's displays that had some that could do 24FPS and some that could do 60 FPS that is why you have the choice of the 24 and 60 fps.


It is probably a chip limitation that firmware can't help.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> However straightforward the 1080p/24 to 1080i conversion may be, it currently isn't being done correctly in the HR20, and when the output mode of the HR20 is set to 1080i, the result is an inferior 1080i signal compared to what comes from the HR20 for source transmitted in native 1080i. Hopefully this is just because they are doing something wrong, and not a limitation of the HR20.
> 
> That statement will only be true if they can fix the current problems with the 1080p/24 to 1080i conversion in the HR20.


Please be sure to watch the 1080p24 program in 1080i mode. I would like to hear your assessment after watching that program in that mode (absolutely no sarcasm there).


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

RAD said:


> The notes in the beginning say the HR20 only at this time. I tried my HR21-100 on a Mits that does 1080p/24 which works with the PS3 but locked up the HR21 with I tried it.
> 
> While the movie on DoD is still there you need the CE software level that was available last weekend on the HR20 before trying to play it, try to grab this weeks download if you still want to try it.


As indicated yesterday (but probably lost in the numerous posts), I have an HR20-700 with the latest NR. I was able to d/l The Bucket List by scheduling a recording through the DirecTV website and I was able to view it. When I set "native on", it was being output by the HR20 at 720p (only the 720p light on the HR20 was on -- confirmed this last night -- and my TV confirmed it was receiving a 720p signal), so I suspect that's how the HR20 handles a 1080p/24 source without the CE (i.e. on the current NR). I was also able to view it when I set it to "native off"/1080i; I must say that the PQ was quite good; not bluray good, but quite good nonetheless; the shots of Freeman sitting on top of the pyramid were probably the best PQ I've ever gotten out of my HR20 (although I've been so wrapped up in this, I'm starting to think my eyes might be playing tricks on me).

--Mav

P.S. The PQ was good, but the audio was not Dolby Digital 5.1 for whatever reason. I have my receiver automatically take 2 channel audio and put it into Dolby ProLogic II - Cinema, so I didn't notice this right away, but the audio was NOT DD 5.1. Again, this is probably related to the fact that I'm running the NR and not the current CE (just like the native output being at 720p), but I thought I should mention this issue as well.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

eandras said:


> I understand what you are saying. You should actually be bringing this up with your TV manufacturer. They should be able to have the TV that was advertised as 1080P do all the requirements that are available. Panasonic, Sony, and all the others should do a firmware upgrade to meet the requirement for 1080P. This is not a Directv problem. Your Bluray DVD player follows a standard set by Sony. The BluRay standard was designed around Sony's displays that had some that could do 24FPS and some that could do 60 FPS that is why you have the choice of the 24 and 60 fps.


Don't disagree, but as stated previously, I think DirecTV has (or should have) an obligation to make their devices compatible with what's currently in the marketplace, and until the 2008 model year, virtually none of the 1080p HDTVs out there (including many so-called "high end" models) could handle a 24p source. To account for this, Bluray players have a user-controlled option to output at 24p or 60p (as do HD-DVD players for that matter, so it's not a Sony conspiracy), so unless there's a physical limitation of the box, there's no reason the HRxx shouldn't handle it this same way.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

ooferomen said:


> their test source is a 24fps source telecined(3:2 pulldown) to 30fps. the same process the directv box would have to do to output at 1080i.


Ok, I see what you're saying there. But I still take the stance that if a display is screwing that up, that's a problem you have to take up with the maker of your display. DirecTV is doing the right thing by offering content in it's native format, which ultimately should avoid all these problems of bad conversions if you have a display that can handle the native format properly. Like I mentioned earlier, I just, this week, purchased a new display that I don't expect to do 24p properly. And I hate that. But unfortunately, many display manufacturers don't have their sh*t together on this issue yet. I don't blame DirecTV for that. Hopefully, as more 24p content becomes available, the issue will get more attention. But the HR series was designed over two years ago, and there's no indication that the hardware is capable of outputing 60p. Why should it? It's not even a valid ATSC format. Yes, that is the native format of many displays, but THEY are the ones that should be able to convert standard content to their native format. There are a lot of displays that are odd resolutions... should we expect the HR to output 768x1024 in case their internal scalers are flawed? Sure, it's nice when other hardware helps you work around the flaw of your display. But I just don't understand why anyone would be mad at DirecTV because their 2 year old DVR can't suddenly be upgraded to work around the flaw of other devices.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Don't disagree, but as stated previously, I think DirecTV has (or should have) an obligation to make their devices compatible with what's currently in the marketplace, and until the 2008 model year, virtually none of the 1080p HDTVs out there (including many so-called "high end" models) could handle a 24p source. To account for this, Bluray players have a user-controlled option to output at 24p or 60p (as do HD-DVD players for that matter, so it's not a Sony conspiracy), so unless there's a physical limitation of the box, there's no reason the HRxx shouldn't handle it this same way.
> 
> --Mav


As we have stated a number of times, this stream is compatible. The compatibility is for 1080i. This does not represent a loss because of the source of the content. It is compatible with all of these 1080p TVs. It is not compatible in 1080p60 mode.

And, not to be indelicate, but how a Blu-Ray player handles this is irrelevant. It is outputting fixed content mastered with less compression and has no other tasks in the background. The HR20 is vastly different hardware (that does seem physically limited to 1080p24, according to a number of posts) with a vastly different purpose. From a 1080p24 source stream, there is no reason to do 1080p60 as opposed to 1080i60.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

BudShark said:


> I'm sure people with 720P sets are just as upset. When they bought their set, no one told them DirecTV would be broadcasting 1080P. Everyone (up until 3-4 weeks ago) vehemently stated we won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon... Ooops!
> 
> Chris


Most of the folks that said "We won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon" were talking about it being sent down by the Ka bird transponder, not VOD.

Your local ISP is not going to like 1080p VOD !!


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Matt9876 said:


> Most of the folks that said "We won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon" were talking about it being sent down by the Ka bird transponder, not VOD.


It could be sent via satellite just as easily. All things being equal, it should take less bandwidth than 1080i. But if the HR series are the only ones capable of converting it to 1080i (?), they may not want to dedicate broadcast bandwidth to such a small audience.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

cartrivision said:


> No ooops. Everyone was talking about 1080p/60 which unlike 1080p/24, actually provides more temporal resolution than 1080i. 1080p/24 contains less temporal resolution than 1080i, which is why 1080p/24 doesn't really provide any big benefit, and why the people who said that you won't see 1080p/60 from any broadcaster are still correct, at least for now.


I stated in my post that 1080P/60 was a different animal.

However, the fact of the matter remains, Dish and DirecTV are broadcasting 1080P signals. It really doesn't matter whether its more or less data than a 1080i signal - its still a Progressive signal with 1080 resolution.

The real question is who does this help/benefit - if anyone? Thats the question. 1080P is a buzz/marketing term.

I will however, disagree with it not providing any real benefit. The question is who/what does the best pulldown on the 60Hz, and whether or not you have a 120Hz.

Those with correctly processing 120Hz displays will see the biggest and immediate benefit as they will only be subject to 5:5 process by the TV.

Those with 60Hz displays and 24Hz compability will see a benefit due to the reduction in scaling/processing chips involved. If the source is 24Hz, and the output is 24Hz - only the TV will be performing processing on the source (and the TV is probably better than the HR20).

Those with 1080i displays will be subject to the HR20s scaling capabilities - which appears by some notes to be suspect.

But stating 1080P/24 doesn't provide any significant benefit is false. Its all dependent on how/what processes the signal. Simply looking at how many "bits" are transmitted and determining quality/benefit based on that isn't necessarily fair. If the source is 1080P/24 and DirecTV passes 1080P/24 - this is the best scenario and a big benefit. If the source is anything other than 1080P/24 - well YMMV.

Chris


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Matt9876 said:


> Most of the folks that said "We won't see 1080P from any broadcaster anytime soon" were talking about it being sent down by the Ka bird transponder, not VOD.
> 
> Your local ISP is not going to like 1080p VOD !!


I think we've seen a fair amount of evidence this is going to be coming down via Ka soon...

HBO/Movies Now!/etc all appear to be poised to do 1080P/24 as soon as the bugs are worked out.

Chris


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> As we have stated a number of times, this stream is compatible. The compatibility is for 1080i. This does not represent a loss because of the source of the content. It is compatible with all of these 1080p TVs. It is not compatible in 1080p60 mode.
> 
> And, not to be indelicate, but how a Blu-Ray player handles this is irrelevant. It is outputting fixed content mastered with less compression and has no other tasks in the background. The HR20 is vastly different hardware (that does seem physically limited to 1080p24, according to a number of posts) with a vastly different purpose. From a 1080p24 source stream, there is no reason to do 1080p60 as opposed to 1080i60.


And, again, I know you're convinced that having the HRxx perform the pulldown and interlace it, then having the TV deinterlace it will yield exactly the same result as not going through that interlacing/deinterlacing process (by two separate components), but as we hashed out yesterday, I doubt that they'll be equally effective in all cases. Introduce more steps, introduce more likelihood of something going wrong. Outputting at 1080p/60 is the "better"/"cleaner" answer if it can be done with the hardware (even if it can't, it's still the better answer). [Insert discussion of Occam's Razor & The K.I.S.S. Principle]

--Mav

P.S. How a bluray (or hddvd) player does it is relevant in that until now, they were pretty much the only 1080p source components out there.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

DarinC said:


> It could be sent via satellite just as easily. All things being equal, it should take less bandwidth than 1080i. But if the HR series are the only ones capable of converting it to 1080i (?), they may not want to dedicate broadcast bandwidth to such a small audience.


All MPEG4 HD receivers should be able to receive/process/pass the MPEG 4 1080P/24 signal.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

BudShark said:


> All MPEG4 HD receivers should be able to receive/process/pass the MPEG 4 1080P/24 signal.


Interesting. And perform inverse telecine as well?


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

DarinC said:


> Interesting. And perform inverse telecine as well?


I believe the only "processing" differences between the HR and the H is on the recording side. The signal source processing and output capabilities are the same. They are all using various revisions of Broadcom chipsets - depending if its 20, 21, or 22 series...

Chris


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> But stating 1080P/24 doesn't provide any significant benefit is false. Its all dependent on how/what processes the signal. Simply looking at how many "bits" are transmitted and determining quality/benefit based on that isn't necessarily fair. If the source is 1080P/24 and DirecTV passes 1080P/24 - this is the best scenario and a big benefit. If the source is anything other than 1080P/24 - well YMMV.
> 
> Chris


I think the majority of the discussion was whether 1080p60 provided any benefit over 1080i60 at the TV level when the source was 1080p24. A number of us accept that the 1080p24 signal has benefits for TVs that can display it at 1080p24 and no downside for TVs that can display 1080i60.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> And, again, I know you're convinced that having the HRxx perform the pulldown and interlace it, then having the TV deinterlace it will yield exactly the same result as not going through that interlacing/deinterlacing process (by two separate components), but as we hashed out yesterday, I doubt that they'll be equally effective in all cases. Introduce more steps, introduce more likelihood of something going wrong. Outputting at 1080p/60 is the "better"/"cleaner" answer if it can be done with the hardware (even if it can't, it's still the better answer). [Insert discussion of Occam's Razor & The K.I.S.S. Principle]
> 
> --Mav
> 
> P.S. How a bluray (or hddvd) player does it is relevant in that until now, they were pretty much the only 1080p source components out there.


By the same token, the simplest method is to buy a TV that supports 1080p24. I would like to see data explaining the shortcomings of the HR2x processing the data. What the TV does on the other side is at the mercy of too many manufacturers to worry about it. Throwing out factors like TV support for 1080p24 means you should also throw out factors like TV support for correct deinterlacing. If that is the case the only thing to test is the HR2x ability to properly interlace a 1080p24 source into 1080i60.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

gregjones said:


> I think the majority of the discussion was whether 1080p60 provided any benefit over 1080i60 at the TV level when the source was 1080p24. A number of us accept that the 1080p24 signal has benefits for TVs that can display it at 1080p24 and no downside for TVs that can display 1080i60.


Gotcha... one could argue it does - but I'm not versed enough on the scaling chips to know.

1080P/24 source to 1080P/60 output. Only scaling is a 3:2 processing.
1080P/24 source to 1080i/60 output. You'll have a 3:2 processing AND an interlacing of progressive source. 2 functions - both of which will have some measure of margin of error.

If the issue is the amount of work/processing done and the TV can handle 1080P/60 - your best bet would be 1080P/60 simply due to less steps.

Chris


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> 1080P/24 source to 1080P/60 output. Only scaling is a 3:2 processing.
> 1080P/24 source to 1080i/60 output. You'll have a 3:2 processing AND an interlacing of progressive source. 2 functions - both of which will have some measure of margin of error.
> 
> If the issue is the amount of work/processing done and the TV can handle 1080P/60 - your best bet would be 1080P/60 simply due to less steps.
> ...


The chips in the HR2x don't seem capable of 1080p60, which rules it out. The two processes described above happen very frequently on 720p data today when displayed on a 1080i display. Think of the number of pixels that have to be modified (scaled) on a 720p image to display on a 1080i native display. The number of source pixels per second is 55296000 for 1280x720x60fps. For 1080p24, it is 49766400 (1920x1080x24). That means that 1080p24 has 90% of the pixels per second versus 720p. For a 1080i display, both have to be interlaced, so that can be factored out. The pixels to scale (720p) are greater than the pixels to telecine (1080p24) for a 1080i output. The telecine process should be less compute-intensive than the scaling process. If that is the case (which depends on chip specifics of which I have no information), the telecine-interlace process should be less compute intensive than the current process for displaying 720p material on 1080i displays.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> By the same token, the simplest method is to buy a TV that supports 1080p24. I would like to see data explaining the shortcomings of the HR2x processing the data. What the TV does on the other side is at the mercy of too many manufacturers to worry about it. Throwing out factors like TV support for 1080p24 means you should also throw out factors like TV support for correct deinterlacing. If that is the case the only thing to test is the HR2x ability to properly interlace a 1080p24 source into 1080i60.


Since what they should be considering are the capabilities of the HDTVs already in circulation amongst their subscriber base, that's not the "same token" at all. I think that if DirecTV is going to market 1080p, they should do it responsibly* by taking into account the capabilities of the HDTVs that are ALREADY IN CIRCULATION and should deliver to those TVs a 1080p format they can handle, which for the vast majority of them means at least an option for 1080p/60.

--Mav

*By "responsibly", I mean not forcing the vast majority of their subscriber base to upgrade their TVs to TVs with a feature that wasn't widely available until the current model year, in order to take advantage of the 1080p offerings in....well...1080p.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> The chips in the HR2x don't seem capable of 1080p60, which rules it out.


This really is an open question, isn't it? I haven't seen that definitively answered in the negative (or positive for that matter).

--Mav


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

I'm glad that it's 1080p/24 because then it looks better with Automotion Plus activated on the 120Hz tv's! You don't get as much of a smoothing effect when watching 1080p/60 stuff with Automotion Plus.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> This really is an open question, isn't it? I haven't seen that definitively answered in the negative (or positive for that matter).
> 
> --Mav


Read back a bit in this thread:
Broadcom data sheet lists: 1080p/24 & 1080p/30, but nothing about 1080p/60.

I think that is your "definitive" answer.


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Ok, I see what you're saying there. But I still take the stance that if a display is screwing that up, that's a problem you have to take up with the maker of your display. DirecTV is doing the right thing by offering content in it's native format, which ultimately should avoid all these problems of bad conversions if you have a display that can handle the native format properly.
> It's not even a valid ATSC format. Yes, that is the native format of many displays, but THEY are the ones that should be able to convert standard content to their native format. There are a lot of displays that are odd resolutions... should we expect the HR to output 768x1024 in case their internal scalers are flawed? Sure, it's nice when other hardware helps you work around the flaw of your display. But I just don't understand why anyone would be mad at DirecTV because their 2 year old DVR can't suddenly be upgraded to work around the flaw of other devices.


1080P/60 is a valid ATSC format, the ATSC tuner in my TV will receive and display 1080P/60 if it were to ever be broadcast OTA (NOT LIKELY). 1080P/24 is not a standard for broadcast Television and has nothing to do with current broadcast standards other than it is the native format for film sources, is broadcast at 60, and is then converted with 3:2 pulldown. 24 FPS is native for film sources ONLY and has NOTHING to do with ATSC broadcast standards. The rational behind High Definition Movies on Disc being recorded and output in 24 FPS is to eliminate the 3:2 pulldown process and display native film if the display accommodates. Sony and others realized the vast majority of HD TV could not display 24FPS and accommodated the consumers by providing the conversion for a displays native 60 so they could display film in 1080P using 3:2 pulldown. Only this year have most of the manufacturers started to produce high end HDs that accept 1080P/24 and they have a refresh rate of 120, not 60. 
I think it's great D* provides movies (film) in 24FPS for those that are able to view this material, but they should have some method to display as 1080P/60 for the vast majority of those that can not view 24FPS source material.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

HD AV said:


> 1080P/60 is a valid ATSC format, 1080P/24 is not.


You must be using a different ATSC standard than I am. I'm referring to table 6.2 of the ATSC video standard. There is a separate standard for satellite which does allow for 1080p/60, but it also allows for 1080p/24. But for satellite, they don't really restrict the resolutions since it's a closed system.



> Sony and others realized the vast majority of HD TV could not display 24FPS and accommodated the consumers by providing the conversion for a displays native 60 so they could display film in 1080P.


Virtually all 1080p displays can already display film in 1080p. The progressive nature of their design makes it impossible to NOT display 1080p. And virtually all 1080p displays can take a 1080i input and de-interlace it. But apparently Sony and others realized how badly their displays (and others) were screwing up inverse telecine.



> I think it's great D* provides movies (film) in 24FPS for those that are able to view this material, but they should have some method to display as 1080P/60 for the vast majority of those that can not view 24FPS source material.


I don't think there were any consumer displays even capable of accepting a 1080p signal when the HR series was designed, and it wasn't until relatively recently that it was discovered that so many that can, can't do inverse telecine very well. How could have DirecTV known so many display manufacturers would f* that up?


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

You must be using a different ATSC standard than I am. I'm referring to table 6.2 of the ATSC video standard. There is a separate standard for satellite which does allow for 1080p/60, but it also allows for 1080p/24. But for satellite, they don't really restrict the resolutions since it's a closed system.

Please remember the context of my posts are pertaining to D* and sat. transmission which is connected either via HDMI or Component.

I was referring strictly to OTA ATSC. Until this model year only a select few HD TVs were able to display 24FPS through HDMI or Component. Yes HD displays do display 24FPS film transmitted @ 60. Some do a very good job with inverse telecine and others as mentioned do very poorly. My Sony, thank goodness, does an excellent job. I had it checked during an ISF calibration. The point I was trying to make is the vast majority of HD TVs were not designed to take native 24FPS through HDMI or Component. As for screwing up inverse telecine, the posters are correct, many do not perform well, but this is true for any film source on any input (@60). Whether or not there were any displays capable of displaying 1080P via HDMI or Component when the HR20 series came out is irrelevant. My point is D*should, if possible, make the 1080P 24 available in 60 so the (current) vast majority of HD TV owners are able to take advantage of the service. My 60"XBR2 will not accept 24FPS via HDMI or Component and it's a 2007 model. Hence, I am not able to take advantage of the service. With my HD DVD and PS3, however, I can as each can be set to output @ 60. This give me the ability to view 1080p/24 source material, albeit not native.



DarinC said:


> Virtually all 1080p displays can already display film in 1080p. The progressive nature of their design makes it impossible to NOT display 1080p. And virtually all 1080p displays can take a 1080i input and de-interlace it. But apparently Sony and others realized how badly their displays (and others) were screwing up inverse telecine.?


No, all 1080p displays can not display native 1080p 60 film content through HDMI or component. They will not accept a 1080p signal, they take 1080i and deinterlace to progressive which is the native resolution of the TV. That does not mean you are viewing a 1080p source. The TV is converting by doing the deinterlacing. Again as mentioned, there are those that do a good job, and those that are not very good at deinterlacing without introducing problems in the output.

In essence, we mostly agree, except for the 1080p/24 issue vs 1080p/60 for the masses.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> How could have DirecTV known so many display manufacturers would f* that up?


That's the wrong question. The question is, since DirecTV knows that so many display manufacturers have f*'d that up, will they deal with that appropriately?

--Mav


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> That's the wrong question. The question is, since DirecTV knows that so many display manufacturers have f*'d that up, will they deal with that appropriately?
> 
> --Mav


It seems the only way would be to have 1080p/30, and I have no idea how or what that would look like with a 1080p/24 source, except to know that my Sony XBR2 does accept a 1080p/30 signal and the Broadcom chip can output 1080p/30.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

HD AV said:


> I was referring strictly to OTA ATSC.


So was I (since that is really ATSC's purpose). 1080x1920p/24 is a valid ATSC OTA format. 1080x1920p/60 is not. To the best of my knowledge, that has been the case ever since the standard was formalized.



> No, all 1080p displays can not display native 1080p 60 film content through HDMI or component.


I did not intend to insinuate that all displays can take a progressive signal via HDMI or component. The point I was making was that all native 1080p displays will show content in their native format. You do not need a progressive input to show progressive content. All 1080p displays take the interlaced input and convert it to progressive. Granted, many of them don't do this correctly, but they are still showing it progressive. It's just that many of them have flaws in their signal processing that cause some artifacts or other glitches.

But I don't understand the uproar about DirecTV providing 24p, and "only" outputing it as either 24p or 30i. Everyone is acting like it's going to look horrible. But with all these displays that aren't getting 1080p via ATSC (because 60p isn't a valid format, and I don't think anyone is actually using 24p OTA), and all of these that can't accept 1080p via HDMI or component, what is everyone complaining about? They were apparently perfectly happy with their displays when receiving an interlaced signal before (and converting it internally), why be upset now? Obviously, now that displays are out there that can accept a 1080p signal (in 24 and/or 60fps), and if you have one of these, but it screws up the inverse telecine, using 60p instead of 24p may provide a workaround for the flaw. But virtually every native 1080 set outside of CRT is going to be a native progressive display, and until Blu-ray (or PC), all they were getting was an interlaced signal, which the set was internally converting to progressive. Correctly or otherwise. Yet the vast majority of people seem to be happy with their displays. It just seems like a lot of angst against DirecTV for them not providing a work-around for their display's weakness, when most were perfectly happy before when they were getting an interlaced signal. :shrug:


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> That's the wrong question. The question is, since DirecTV knows that so many display manufacturers have f*'d that up, will they deal with that appropriately?


Given that the HRs were designed BEFORE it was known that so many f'd it up, what would you expect them to do? Is it DirecTV's responsibility to design, produce, and provide you with a new DVR to fix your displays problem? Have you asked your display manufacturer to give you a new one that doesn't have the problem, since they are the ones who f'd it up?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I want DirecTV to give me new DVR(s) and I want Sony to give me what I paid for, a TV that displays all forms of 1080p, and *I want it all for free*.

BTW: I'm not holding my breath while I wait. :lol:


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

DarinC said:


> I did not intend to insinuate that all displays can take a progressive signal via HDMI or component. The point I was making was that all native 1080p displays will show content in their native format. You do not need a progressive input to show progressive content. All 1080p displays take the interlaced input and convert it to progressive. Granted, many of them don't do this correctly, but they are still showing it progressive. It's just that many of them have flaws in their signal processing that cause some artifacts or other glitches.
> 
> But I don't understand the uproar about DirecTV providing 24p, and "only" outputting it as either 24p or 30i. Everyone is acting like it's going to look horrible. But with all these displays that 1080p via HDMI or component, what is everyone complaining about? They were apparently perfectly happy with their displays when receiving an interlaced signal before (and converting it internally), why be upset now? Obviously, now that displays are out there that can accept a 1080p signal (in 24 and/or 60fps), and if you have one of these, but it screws up the inverse telecine, using 60p instead of 24p may provide a workaround for the flaw. But virtually every native 1080 set outside of CRT is going to be a native progressive display, and until Blu-ray (or PC), all they were getting was an interlaced signal, which the set was internally converting to progressive. Correctly or otherwise. Yet the vast majority of people seem to be happy with their displays. It just seems like a lot of angst against DirecTV for them not providing a work-around for their display's weakness, when most were perfectly happy before when they were getting an interlaced signal. :shrug:


This is where you and I completely agree with the exception of D* only providing 24FPS which the majority of sets can not accept (and I understand exactly how a progressive display processes and displays an incoming signal). If they were to provide a setting for 60 like the HD DVDs and PS3 do then the HD owner's that have sets that accept 1080p/60 (as it is referred to- but I believe is actually 30p). would be able to enjoy 1080p input regardless of how their display processes interlaced signals to progressive as this processing is bypassed when the TV "sees" a progressive signal. Now 3:2 pulldown handling is a separate issue and you are correct in that many sets do not do this properly and therefore there may be no improvement in PQ, in fact, it could be worse. My XBR2 correctly handles this and I can see an improvement in PQ between 1080i and 1080p input, albeit slight, but noticeable. I am one who would like to be able to take FULL advantage of the service, but can not because my set does not accept 1080P/24. It's not a matter of DirecTV not providing a work-around for my display's weakness. It's a matter of providing a signal that is compatible with my TV. Lack of 1080P/24 input is not a weakness, it is a lack of a very new feature on this year's higher end HD models. I'm just saying it would be a nice feature for D* to implement so those without 24FPS compatablilty would potentially benefit from bypassing deinterlacing and receiving a progressive signal without the degradation that may, or may not, be introduced by all the ****** up processor implementations in a lot of HD models. As a side note....Aren't we all happy until something better comes along that we don't have and wish we did?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

HD AV said:


> It's not a matter of DirecTV not providing a work-around for my display's weakness. It's a matter of providing a signal that is compatible with my TV.


Well, they do provide a signal that is compatible with your TV: 1080i. That is the crux of the whole discussion... assuming your set performs inverse telecine correctly, then the end result should be the same as it would be if you could accept the native 24p signal. There was, however, a report earlier that the HR is doing something wrong with it's interlacing of the progressive signal, so that's a whole new wrench in the system.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> I want DirecTV to give me new DVR(s) and I want Sony to give me what I paid for, a TV that displays all forms of 1080p, and *I want it all for free*.
> 
> BTW: I'm not holding my breath while I wait. :lol:


You may just need to call your TV manufacturer and ask if they have any kind of software upgrades which may fix the issue.

I just spoke with Mitsubishi regarding my 1080p TV and I was told that they have had reports about their TV's not syncing up properly with some 1080p devices and will send me out an upgrade which may correct the issue..


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

fluffybear said:


> You may just need to call your TV manufacturer and ask if they have any kind of software upgrades which may fix the issue.
> 
> I just spoke with Mitsubishi regarding my 1080p TV and I was told that they have had reports about their TV's not syncing up properly with some 1080p devices and will send me out an upgrade which may correct the issue..


I believe this update is called the "Promise Module"... !rolling
The update will improve your TV, make it 1080P compatible, add HDMI 1.3b support, and fix all issues. However, it will cost about $1000. 

Sorry - just couldn't resist...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

fluffybear said:


> You may just need to call your TV manufacturer and ask if they have any kind of software upgrades which may fix the issue.
> 
> I just spoke with Mitsubishi regarding my 1080p TV and I was told that they have had reports about their TV's not syncing up properly with some 1080p devices and will send me out an upgrade which may correct the issue..


You mean like spend a couple of hours on the phone to Sony to be told there are no updates and it is hardware limited, requiring me to buy a new TV?
I can say "been there, done that"!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BudShark said:


> I believe this update is called the "Promise Module"... !rolling
> The update will improve your TV, make it 1080P compatible, add HDMI 1.3b support, and fix all issues. However, it will cost about $1000.
> 
> Sorry - just couldn't resist...


Now that's just mean... :lol: 
Actually $1k would be cheap compared to what Sony told me I needed.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> You mean like spend a couple of hours on the phone to Sony to be told there are no updates and it is hardware limited, requiring me to buy a new TV?
> I can say "been there, done that"!


Sony has never been a good company for providing upgrades. I have a lot of Sony Equipment which is in the same boat as your TV


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

BudShark said:


> I believe this update is called the "Promise Module"... !rolling
> The update will improve your TV, make it 1080P compatible, add HDMI 1.3b support, and fix all issues. However, it will cost about $1000.
> 
> Sorry - just couldn't resist...


I stepped in to that one.. 

Mitsubishi though does offer software upgrades for some of their sets which may or may not correct the issue. My Hughes HDVR2 would not work with my Mits when I first purchased it and after speaking with Mits, I was sent an upgrade which corrected the issue.. I am hoping this latest upgrade will correct the issue syncing the HR20 and TV..


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Well, they do provide a signal that is compatible with your TV: 1080i. That is the crux of the whole discussion... assuming your set performs inverse telecine correctly, then the end result should be the same as it would be if you could accept the native 24p signal. There was, however, a report earlier that the HR is doing something wrong with it's interlacing of the progressive signal, so that's a whole new wrench in the system.


Now the issue is really confused. There is no interlacing with a progressive signal. It's a complete single frame. How could the HR be doing any interlacing on a supposedly progressive signal? This statement would believe the HR is taking a 1080i feed and processing it into a 1080p output. That's not a 1080p movie. The source and transmitted signal must be progressive or else the HR is just doing what your TV does, upconverting to 1080p. That makes no sense at all.


----------



## RxMan1 (Jun 1, 2005)

Slightly OT. Can 1080p be sent over component cables? I have a distribution system that is component based.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

HD AV said:


> Now the issue is really confused. There is no interlacing with a progressive signal. It's a complete single frame. How could the HR be doing any interlacing on a supposedly progressive signal? This statement would believe the HR is taking a 1080i feed and processing it into a 1080p output. That's not a 1080p movie. The source and transmitted signal must be progressive or else the HR is just doing what your TV does, upconverting to 1080p. That makes no sense at all.


There is interlacing of a progressive signal if you have your HR20 set to do so. The HR20 can be set to output a 1080i (or 480i) signal regardless of what the source signal is. When set to output 1080i or 480i, if the source signal is 720p or 1080p/24 the HR20 converts it to interlaced and outputs that interlaced video.

As I reported earlier, the HR20 doesn't seem to be interlacing the 1080p/24 test VOD properly, and it is introducing certain obvious artifacts. This only seems to be a problem with the 1080p/24 content as the HR20 doesn't have the same problem interlacing 720p content.


----------



## shadough (Dec 31, 2006)

I thought the 1080p VOD was a new E* offering? I'm not aware D* is offering this?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

RxMan1 said:


> Slightly OT. Can 1080p be sent over component cables? I have a distribution system that is component based.


No consumer-level video equipment sends 1080p over component, though it is theoretically possible. The studios will, sooner or later, lock down all analog outputs to 480p. That's already been done for upscaling DVD players, and already programmed into Blu-Ray players for 2012. There have been rumblings about this happening in the "near future" with cable and sat boxes as well.

The studios are deathly afraid of piracy, and only want HDCP-compliant connections to be able to deliver HD content, meaning HDMI or HDCP-enabled DVI.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

shadough said:


> I thought the 1080p VOD was a new E* offering? I'm not aware D* is offering this?


Actually D* announced (7/28)that they were going to be offering 1080p before E* did (7/31).
http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=324646
http://dish.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=325440

Althought E* actually was putting it out there first, D*'s just testing it now.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

HD AV said:


> There is no interlacing with a progressive signal. It's a complete single frame. How could the HR be doing any interlacing on a supposedly progressive signal? This statement would believe the HR is taking a 1080i feed and processing it into a 1080p output. That's not a 1080p movie. The source and transmitted signal must be progressive or else the HR is just doing what your TV does, upconverting to 1080p. That makes no sense at all.


You clearly came in at the tail end of this thread.  That is precisely what goes on, and has been the major debate of this thread. You can indeed interlace a progressive signal. And you can subsequently de-interlace it to provide an EXACT replication of the original progressive signal. The problem is many displays don't do that properly, causing the resulting image to not be exactly the same as the original progressive signal. Most of the debate of this thread has been about how many TVs screw that up, and whether DirecTV's is "wrong" to advertise 24p content without providing a 1080p60 output to for those people who's TV's screw up the inverse telecine on 1080i, and either can't accept a 24p signal, or do, but screw that up too.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

IIP said:


> No consumer-level video equipment sends 1080p over component, though it is theoretically possible. <...>


I see you posting too often disputing statements as absolute knowledge.

Anyway what you says was incorrect - all new consumer's PC video card support 1080p60 and highest freq refresh rate over component output.
Plus your forgot HD DVD and some BR players.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HD AV said:


> 1080P/60 is a valid ATSC format, the ATSC tuner in my TV will receive and display 1080P/60 if it were to ever be broadcast OTA (NOT LIKELY). 1080P/24 is not a standard for broadcast Television and has nothing to do with current broadcast standards other than it is the native format for film sources, is broadcast at 60, and is then converted with 3:2 pulldown. 24 FPS is native for film sources ONLY and has NOTHING to do with ATSC broadcast standards. The rational behind High Definition Movies on Disc being recorded and output in 24 FPS is to eliminate the 3:2 pulldown process and display native film if the display accommodates. Sony and others realized the vast majority of HD TV could not display 24FPS and accommodated the consumers by providing the conversion for a displays native 60 so they could display film in 1080P using 3:2 pulldown. Only this year have most of the manufacturers started to produce high end HDs that accept 1080P/24 and they have a refresh rate of 120, not 60.
> I think it's great D* provides movies (film) in 24FPS for those that are able to view this material, but they should have some method to display as 1080P/60 for the vast majority of those that can not view 24FPS source material.


Some basic information:

*ATSC Broadcast Standards*1080p60 is not a broadcast format (Table 6.2: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-4-2007-w-Amend-1.pdf)
1080i60 doesn't exist either. 1080i30 does. (Same table). Tho some people seem to be using 1080i60 to refer to 60 interlaced fields instead of 30 frames.
1080p24 is.

*ATSC Direct to Home Satellite Standards*
1080p60 is defined: (Table 7.3, page 17: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_81.pdf)
As is 1080i60, and 1080i30.
1080i24 is not.

Inverse Telecine only works perfectly if all inserted fields are marked and available for deletion. If not, then you get an interpolation of an interpolation.

The HR2x does (or at least will once the CE process is done) handle 1080p24 material correctly. If the TV claims to support 1080p24 via the HDMI handshake but in fact does not, that is not the fault of the HR2x. (And bloody hard to keep a DB of.) Simply turn Native off. The HR2x will output 1080i30.

If the TV does accept 1080p24 and works, all is good.
If the TV does not accept 1080p24, the HR2x will output 1080i30 and all is good too.

I'm not sure why anyone would ask the hr2x family of chips to output a format beyond its capabilities. I'd ask the TV manufacturers to support all the 1080p modes that the nomenclature of 1080p stands for. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> I see you posting too often disputing statements as absolute knowledge.
> 
> Anyway what you says was incorrect - all new consumer's PC video card support 1080p60 and highest freq refresh rate over component output.
> Plus your forgot HD DVD and some BR players.


That's ok, it will go away for copy protected materials anyway.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Some basic information:
> 
> *ATSC Broadcast Standards*1080p60 is not a broadcast format (Table 6.2: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-4-2007-w-Amend-1.pdf)
> 1080i60 doesn't exist either. 1080i30 does. (Same table). Tho some people seem to be using 1080i60 to refer to 60 interlaced fields instead of 30 frames.
> ...


So, should/can I send you the Sony Customer service number so you may tell them? :lol:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

IIP said:


> No consumer-level video equipment sends 1080p over component, though it is theoretically possible.


On the flip side, very few (if any) items of consumer gear will accept a 1080p signal over component inputs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> So, should/can I send you the Sony Customer service number so you may tell them? :lol:


Talking to Sony doesn't do anyone any good (unless you consider talking to the hand therapeutic or enjoy self-flagellation).


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> So, should/can I send you the Sony Customer service number so you may tell them? :lol:


Actually the Consumer Electronics Association is "working with all the manufacturers" to fix the incompatibilities...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Igor (Jan 3, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Actually the Consumer Electronics Association is "working with all the manufacturers" to fix the incompatibilities...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Tom, you are correct that ATSC includes 1080p24 and it also includes 1080p30. It does not include 1080p60 probably because it does not fit the capacity of the spectrum provided to each broadcastter using MPEG2.

The TV suppliers should have built sets compatible with the ATSC formats, and in particular the 1080p24 used in movies. Converting movies to 1080p60 would cause degradation, regardless of who converts it.

I am glad D* picked 1080p24 and not 1080p30 or other format. I like native mode and original aspect ratio, original frame rate is great for me.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Vitor said:


> Tom, you are correct that ATSC includes 1080p24 and it also includes 1080p30. It does not include 1080p60 probably because it does not fit the capacity of the spectrum provided to each broadcastter using MPEG2.
> 
> The TV suppliers should have built sets compatible with the ATSC formats, and in particular the 1080p24 used in movies. Converting movies to 1080p60 would cause degradation, regardless of who converts it.
> 
> I am glad D* picked 1080p24 and not 1080p30 or other format. I like native mode and original aspect ratio, original frame rate is great for me.


Oh, I bet someone "could" try to fit 1080p60 MPEG2 into the 19.2mbs rate...it's only double the data.  (And would look like 1950's color TV on the fringe reception area--all snow and no content.) 

Seriously, the more I learn about the various "corrections" to make 24 frame per second source into 29.97 frames per second and then back again, I more and more appreciate a true 1080p24 source that can be translated just one time either by the HR2x or the TV. None of this source at 1080p24, convert to 1080i, send it, then scale/inverse telecine/convert to "whatever the TV might actually support". (Of course the best is a simple 5:5 pulldown of a 1080p24 input to 1080p120 since that is a clean multiple of both 24 and 30 fps. )

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Igor (Jan 3, 2005)

Tom, I am also studying this matter lately as I plan to purchase a new television. The best solution was found by Pioneer in the Kuro television (I do not work for Pioneer).

They seem to have implemented 72 Hz and 120 Hz and toggle between them as appropriated. 72Hz is used with 24 frames material (3:3).

I still wonder why other major television suppliers missed this.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Patents is my guess. (Tho somethings like a 5:5 and 3:3 pulldown shouldn't really be called "new" and therefore shouldn't be patentable.) 

The Kuro's looked really, really good at CES.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> You clearly came in at the tail end of this thread.  That is precisely what goes on, and has been the major debate of this thread. You can indeed interlace a progressive signal. And you can subsequently de-interlace it to provide an EXACT replication of the original progressive signal.


Well, not "exact" if *something* screws up the interlacing (which is apparently a problem at this early stage in the testing) or *something* screws up the deinterlacing. As we've discussed, saying that 1080i/60 is the "solution" does two things: (a) introduces unnecessary processing by two separate components (HRxx interlacing and TV deinterlacing) which is just inviting trouble; and (b) makes the "promise" of 1080p not exactly true since it's really 1080i for those sets (most of them) that can't handle 1080p/24. Oh, and (c), violates the K.I.S.S. principle.

Again, the *simple* solution to get an EXACT replication of the original progressive signal (as exact as can be with a pulldown introduced), is to have the box output at 1080p/60...but...I digress...

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Most of the debate of this thread has been about how many TVs screw that up, and whether DirecTV's is "wrong" to advertise 24p content without providing a 1080p60 output . . .


The question is whether DirecTV is "wrong" to advertise 1080p content without providing a 1080p60 output...if they were advertising 24p, that would be a different story.

--Mav

P.S. Tom, I highly value your take on this, but I don't think whether or not 1080p60 is an ATSC broadcast standard is really germane to the question of whether or not the HRxx should be capable of outputting it for compatibility reasons.


----------



## Igor (Jan 3, 2005)

What is the logic for saying D* is "wrong'?

ATSC supports 1080p24 and does not support 1080p60. It seems to me the TV manufacturers should not claim ATSC compatibility without 1080p24.

ATSC also supports 1080p30, may be we could make a point around it. But I rather have 1080p24 to match the source original frame rate.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Vitor said:


> What is the logic for saying D* is "wrong'?
> 
> ATSC supports 1080p24 and does not support 1080p60. It seems to me the TV manufacturers should not claim ATSC compatibility without 1080p24.
> 
> ATSC also supports 1080p30, may be we could make a point around it. But I rather have 1080p24 to match the source original frame rate.


We aren't really saying it's "wrong"; we're saying it's a little misleading to advertise 1080p when only a small fraction of 1080p HDTV owners out there will actually have it delivered to their TVs in 1080p (most of us will have it delivered to our TVs in 1080i since they don't "do" 1080p/24).

As for 1080p/60 not being an ATSC broadcast format, that's not really relevant to the issue since we aren't really advocating for a 1080p60 broadcast. What we're advocating for is for DirecTV to accept the facts of the situation (that the vast majority of 1080p HDTVs manufactured prior to the 2008 model year don't properly handle 1080p/24) and address it the way other manufacturers of 1080p components have addressed it -- give the user the option of selecting native 1080p/24 (for those sets that can handle it) or 1080p/60 (for those sets that can't).

--Mav

P.S. On your other post about the TV you're looking at, it's pretty widely agreed that the Kuros are the best available FP TVs out there right now...and, as a plus...you won't have to worry about 1080p/24. I'm extremely happy with my Panny, but looking back, I probably would've spent the extra $1500 and gotten the Pioneer 6010.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster, I feel like we are getting nowhere. I understand your frustration but disagree with your assessment.

A number of us feel that DirecTV cannot be held responsible for TV design defects. You mentioned DirecTV was misleading consumers. I feel that the TV manufacturers have been the ones that have capitalized on misleading consumers. At this point, DirecTV has not made the first dollar by its statements. The TV manufacturers have sold equipment for several years under their highly inaccurate claims.

The second point about providing compatiblity is similar. The streams are compatible with your set, just not in the mode you prefer. Again, if it processed 1080i correctly, it would not be an issue and there would be no loss of quality versus 1080p60 for the same 1080p24 content. This ends up being very similar to the first concern.

Two different design defects in the TV (one of which is significantly less prevalent than the other) are impacting your ability to appreciate the 1080p24 content. I feel your pain but don't see how DirecTV can fix it while still providing good value (not wasting bandwidth) on existing equipment.

I won't belabor the point anymore.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Well, not "exact" if *something* screws up the interlacing


Well, no, and I can't safely walk across the street if a bus hits me on the way.  Notice that I said "...you *can *subsequently de-interlace it to provide an EXACT replication...". Whether or not that happens depends on whether or not the interlacer and de-interlacer do their jobs correctly.



> As we've discussed, saying that 1080i/60 is the "solution" does two things: (a) introduces unnecessary processing by two separate components (HRxx interlacing and TV deinterlacing) which is just inviting trouble; and (b) makes the "promise" of 1080p not exactly true since it's really 1080i for those sets (most of them) that can't handle 1080p/24. Oh, and (c), violates the K.I.S.S. principle.


K.I.S.S. would be transmitting it in the native resolution of 24p, and outputing it in 24p. They do that. They also offer the _option _of outputing in 1080i/30 for those who can't take a 24p input.



> Again, the *simple* solution to get an EXACT replication of the original progressive signal (as exact as can be with a pulldown introduced), is to have the box output at 1080p/60...but...I digress...


No, 1080p/60 would require pulldown. Outputting 1080p/24 does not. Your solution of 1080p/60 is NOT the simplest solution.



> The question is whether DirecTV is "wrong" to advertise 1080p content without providing a 1080p60 output...if they were advertising 24p, that would be a different story.


24p IS 1080p. In fact, in the TV broadcast world, it is more "standard" than 1080p/60 (computers are a different matter). They are advertising 1080p. They are sending 1080p, and they are outputing 1080p. From film to your TV, with NO timing changes. How much more simple can it be? If you TV can't accept that properly, get a new one, accept their option of converting it to interlaced, or don't download the movies. You aren't even paying for them unless you download them, so what's the big deal?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> We aren't really saying it's "wrong"; we're saying it's a little misleading to advertise 1080p when only a small fraction of 1080p HDTV owners out there will actually have it delivered to their TVs in 1080p.


They were also advertising HDTV when only a small fraction of TV owners could accept an HD signal.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Maverickster, I feel like we are getting nowhere. I understand your frustration but disagree with your assessment.
> 
> A number of us feel that DirecTV cannot be held responsible for TV design defects. You mentioned DirecTV was misleading consumers. I feel that the TV manufacturers have been the ones that have capitalized on misleading consumers. At this point, DirecTV has not made the first dollar by its statements. The TV manufacturers have sold equipment for several years under their highly inaccurate claims.


Agreed, but that's life. IMHO, if DirecTV is going to advertise 1080p, they should have to play the cards they're dealt...which is a world in which 1080p/24 is not a widely usable 1080p format.



> The second point about providing compatiblity is similar. The streams are compatible with your set, just not in the mode you prefer. Again, if it processed 1080i correctly, it would not be an issue and there would be no loss of quality versus 1080p60 for the same 1080p24 content. This ends up being very similar to the first concern.


Agreed that the points are similar, but if it's 1080i, it's not the advertised 1080p, and you introduce TWO additional processes, BOTH of which create potential problems. Indeed, as the testing is going on, apparently the HRxx is having some "trouble" properly interlacing (so it's not just on the TV's deinterlacing end that trouble is created)...of course, if it output 1080p/60 there would be no such problems.



> Two different design defects in the TV (one of which is significantly less prevalent than the other) are impacting your ability to appreciate the 1080p24 content. I feel your pain but don't see how DirecTV can fix it while still providing good value (not wasting bandwidth) on existing equipment.


Well, that's not exactly true. The lack of 1080p/24 support on my (and most other people's) TV is a problem, but again, thems the cards DirecTV was dealt. Frankly, I doubt my TV would have any trouble properly deinterlacing this (if it were properly interlaced), but requiring it to do so, again, means it's not being supplied with a [advertised] 1080p source and creates at least the potential for unnecessary problems.



> I won't belabor the point anymore.


Me neither.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Well, no, and I can't safely walk across the street if a bus hits me on the way.  Notice that I said "...you *can *subsequently de-interlace it to provide an EXACT replication...". Whether or not that happens depends on whether or not the interlacer and de-interlacer do their jobs correctly.


No, whether or not you get hit by a bus depends on whether or not there are busses in the road. If there aren't, you won't.



> K.I.S.S. would be transmitting it in the native resolution of 24p, and outputing it in 24p. They do that. They also offer the _option _of outputing in 1080i/30 for those who can't take a 24p input.


Agreed; but my point is that K.I.S.S. should apply to the *option* as well...which would mean 1080p/60.



> No, 1080p/60 would require pulldown. Outputting 1080p/24 does not. Your solution of 1080p/60 is NOT the simplest solution.


Again, we're talking about the *options* for those without 1080p/24-capable sets; and as between 1080i/60 and 1080p/60 (both of which require pulldown, so it's not a distinction), obviously the latter is simpler.



> 24p IS 1080p.


No it's not. It's a subset of 1080p. If you advertise 24p, fine; then you're telling the world that what you're giving them is the fraction of the 1080p world that is 24p. But if you advertise 1080p, you should provide it in the formats required to make it compatible with the 1080p devices out there IN 1080p (not 1080i). This is the exact same argument you made about TV manufacturers improperly advertising 1080p when their sets don't do 1080p/24, only turned on its head.

--Mav


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Agreed, but that's life. IMHO, if DirecTV is going to advertise 1080p, they should have to play the cards they're dealt...which is a world in which 1080p/24 is not a widely usable 1080p format.
> 
> Agreed that the points are similar, but if it's 1080i, it's not the advertised 1080p, and you introduce TWO additional processes, BOTH of which create potential problems. Indeed, as the testing is going on, apparently the HRxx is having some "trouble" properly interlacing (so it's not just on the TV's deinterlacing end that trouble is created)...of course, if it output 1080p/60 there would be no such problems.
> 
> ...


OK, I tried to let it die. But instead of agreeing to disagree you have decided to start over again. It is ridiculous.

You are blaming DirecTV for giving you a 1080i stream if your TV is unable to use a 1080p stream. I know you don't like 1080p24, but the real world to which you refer is based on 1080p24 content. You cannot blame DirecTV for giving you both a 1080p and 1080i alternative and say they are not trying to accommodate you.

Blame them for not having a crystal ball years ago in the HR2x design and foreseeing you buying a broken TV. Then blame them for false advertising when they give you a second option for your broken TV. You might as well hook up an SD TV to the DVR. The argument would be no less credible then.

Will you concede the following:

1080p24 is, in fact, 1080p
1080p24 happens to be more standard than 1080p60
Barring TV defects a 1080i60 signal would provide the same quality as 1080p60 from a 1080p24 source
Having 1080p60 as an option is only an improvement for TVs that fail to process both 1080p24 and 1080i60 correctly
According to documentation on the chips in the HR2x series, they are not capable of 1080p60 output


----------



## Igor (Jan 3, 2005)

For movies that were produced at 24fps, 1080p24 transmission is the best format.

Transmitting 1080p24 and converting to 1080i in the HR21 to TVs that do not support 1080p24 should yield better signal quality than current transmission of the signal at 1080i. I am assuming the MPEG4 encoders are more efficient with progressive scan.

TV manufacturers probably added support to 1080p60 because they could reuse the oscilator they already needed for 720p60 and 1080i. The set might be cheap but they can claim "1080p". One should assume similar short cuts in the video processing portion were made.... It is possible that the best video quality for those sets is achieved from a 1080p24 converted to 1080i by HR21, rather than transmitting at 1080p60.

For all other customers with sets that do not support 1080p, the 1080p24 transmission should improve the video quality of the 1080i viewing.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

How can I use Double Live Buffer?


I'm afraid we've come to the point of: :beatdeadhorse: 

Did Sony screw me over my $4,000 TV? You bet.

Did DirecTV "give" me a great looking movie to watch? You bet.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> No, whether or not you get hit by a bus depends on whether or not there are busses in the road. If there aren't, you won't.


Exactly. And if the image is properly interlaced then de-interlaced, the end result will be exactly the same. It's a shame that so many displays screw that up, but it is what it is.



> Agreed; but my point is that K.I.S.S. should apply to the *option* as well...which would mean 1080p/60.


Well now you're bending the rules a bit... that's not K.I.S.S., that's K.I.J.C.E.T.F.M.S.S. (keep it just complicated enough to fit my specific situation). They are offering two extremes: the most "ideal", direct output (completely native), and the most common, compatible output. While I certainly agree more options would be _nice_, it's kind of moot if the hardware can't do it.



> No it's not. It's a subset of 1080p.


True, but so is p60. BOTH are 1080p.


> If you advertise 24p, fine; then you're telling the world that what you're giving them is the fraction of the 1080p world that is 24p.


That fraction probably being greater than 999/1000 of the native format of movies.


> But if you advertise 1080p, you should provide it in the formats required to make it compatible with the 1080p devices out there IN 1080p (not 1080i).


They provide it in the native format of the content, which is the right thing to do. You believe their box should provide the option to convert that to another format to work around the flaws in many sets. That's apparently not an option, since their boxes were designed before those flaws were known about. Since you, like many, got duped by the TV manufacturers, you need to be mindful of what flavor of 1080p you buy in to. I understand the frustration, I just don't understand why it's directed at DirecTV.


> This is the exact same argument you made about TV manufacturers improperly advertising 1080p when their sets don't do 1080p/24, only turned on its head.


I don't recall make such an argument. But this debate has gone on so long, it all runs together. :new_Eyecr


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> OK, I tried to let it die. But instead of agreeing to disagree you have decided to start over again. It is ridiculous.


Agreed. The railing against my suggestion for delivering 1080p content to 1080p TVs in, well, a 1080p format usable by the bulk of 1080p TVs in circulation is ridiculous.



> You are blaming DirecTV for giving you a 1080i stream if your TV is unable to use a 1080p stream. I know you don't like 1080p24, but the real world to which you refer is based on 1080p24 content.


No, I'm not. I'd love it if we didn't even have to have this conversation and the "real world" 1080p TVs out there all did (or even if most of them did) 1080p/24, but I'm recognizing that's not the reality...



> You cannot blame DirecTV for giving you both a 1080p and 1080i alternative and say they are not trying to accommodate you.


Yes, I can, because they're only providing 1080p to a small fraction of 1080p TV owners out there; to the rest of us, they're calling it 1080p, but their devices are outputting 1080i.



> Blame them for not having a crystal ball years ago in the HR2x design and foreseeing you buying a broken TV.


I really don't understand this argument; my TV is no more (and, in fact, is probably less) broken than all but 18 models in existence prior to model year 2008. The HR20 came out, what, in Fall '06? I'm betting I can count on one hand the number of TVs that supported 1080p/24 in the Fall of '06. This is not a new problem.



> Then blame them for false advertising when they give you a second option for your broken TV.


No, blaming them for saying they're delivering 1080p to me (and the vast majority of the applicable subscriber base) when, in fact, they're not.



> Will you concede the following:
> 
> 1080p24 is, in fact, 1080p: _No, it's a subset of 1080p. Saying you're delivering 1080p when all you're delivering is 1080p24 (to the few that can process it), but 1080i to everybody else is like saying you're giving away free BMWs to everybody, then giving M5s to a few folks, but Volkswagens to everybody else. I can't drive an M5, that's fine; I just want my 330i!_
> 
> ...


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Exactly. And if the image is properly interlaced then de-interlaced, the end result will be exactly the same. It's a shame that so many displays screw that up, but it is what it is.


No unnecessary interlacing/deinterlacing = No busses.



> Well now you're bending the rules a bit... that's not K.I.S.S., that's K.I.J.C.E.T.F.M.S.S. (keep it just complicated enough to fit my specific situation). They are offering two extremes: the most "ideal", direct output (completely native), and the most common, compatible output. While I certainly agree more options would be _nice_, it's kind of moot if the hardware can't do it.


The "most common, compatible [1080p] output" is 1080p/60.



> True, but so is p60. BOTH are 1080p.


Right, and both together will cover the bases.



> That fraction probably being greater than 999/1000 of the native format of movies.


Not following this. If they say 24p rather than 1080p, they're telling the world that they're giving something only to those people with 1080p/24 capable sets; which would be fine. If they just say 1080p, though, then deliver 1080p/24 to those with 1080p/24 capable sets and 1080i to those without (most of us), then they're being untruthful.



> They provide it in the native format of the content, which is the right thing to do. You believe their box should provide the option to convert that to another format to work around the flaws in many sets.


Agreed...on both counts.



> That's apparently not an option, since their boxes were designed before those flaws were known about.


I still don't understand this...were the 1080p HDTVs out in the Fall of '06 1080p/24 capable, then subsequently they weren't?



> Since you, like many, got duped by the TV manufacturers, you need to be mindful of what flavor of 1080p you buy in to.


I don't think many of us got "duped". I knew when I bought my TV that it wouldn't do 1080p/24. That was not a shocker. But, since the 1080p source components out there at the time (less than a year ago) had the option of 1080p/60, it didn't really matter to me (not enough to drop the extra $1500 on a Kuro anyway). This is different. This is a component that delivers 1080p in 1080p/24 only. That's a pretty unique situation.



> I don't recall make such an argument. But this debate has gone on so long, it all runs together. :new_Eyecr


Might not have been you...apologies...I forget too...

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Darin & Greg,

Uncle.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Indeed.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Agreed


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Agreed, but that's life. IMHO, if DirecTV is going to advertise 1080p, they should have to play the cards they're dealt...which is a world in which 1080p/24 is not a widely usable 1080p format.


If color TVs were just coming out, and DirecTV advertised that they had color movies available, would they be lying about that, just because YOU only had a B&W TV and couldn't see their programming in color? Even if your neighbor, with the same service, could see it in color on his new color set?

IMO, no way.

Imagine this: today, you go out and spend $5000 on a brand new 120 Hz refresh TV that correctly handles 24p content (5:5 pulldown). You hook it up to your HR21 only to discover that the HR21 has converted 24p content into 60p to be compatible with older TVs. Now, even though you spent money on a TV that displays movies in the format they were intended, you still have to live with 3:2 pulldown and judder just so that people who bought 60 Hz TVs can see 60p instead of 60i on their TV's signal display.

Yay! Judder for everyone, and no way for ANYONE to see things correctly. That's what you're asking for. The vast majority of 60Hz HDTV owners wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.

Save your bitterness for your TV manufacturer, not for DirecTV for providing the signal in the most correct format.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

IIP said:


> Imagine this: today, you go out and spend $5000 on a brand new 120 Hz refresh TV that correctly handles 24p content (5:5 pulldown). You hook it up to your HR21 only to discover that the HR21 has converted 24p content into 60p to be compatible with older TVs. Now, even though you spent money on a TV that displays movies in the format they were intended, you still have to live with 3:2 pulldown and judder just so that people who bought 60 Hz TVs can see 60p instead of 60i on their TV's signal display.
> 
> Yay! Judder for everyone, and no way for ANYONE to see things correctly. That's what you're asking for. The vast majority of 60Hz HDTV owners wouldn't be able to tell the difference anyway.
> 
> Save your bitterness for your TV manufacturer, not for DirecTV for providing the signal in the most correct format.


Please read the posts before you jump to conclusions. I'm most certainly not "asking for" or suggesting they should take all 24p content and automatically convert it to 60p for everybody. Thanks.

--Mav

P.S. Since picture quality is paramount to me, I would not be purchasing a 120hz TV anytime soon since last I checked that's only available on LCDs...but that's for another day.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> Since picture quality is paramount to me, I would not be purchasing a 120hz TV anytime soon since last I checked that's only available on LCDs...but that's for another day.


And DLP. Not sure if any Plasmas do.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> And DLP. Not sure if any Plasmas do.


Forgot about DLPs...no, unless things have changed quite recently, there are no 120hz plasmas.

--Mav


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

There are now plasmas and projectors with 72 and/or 96 Hz alternative refresh rates. I'm not aware of any that do 120 Hz, but it's not really necessary with plasma; 72 or 96 solves the 24p problem just fine.

Some projectors have a 48 Hz mode, but reviews suggesst that some of them don't cut it, while others are acceptable.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

Maverickster said:


> Please read the posts before you jump to conclusions. I'm most certainly not "asking for" or suggesting they should take all 24p content and automatically convert it to 60p for everybody. Thanks.
> 
> --Mav
> 
> P.S. Since picture quality is paramount to me, I would not be purchasing a 120hz TV anytime soon since last I checked that's only available on LCDs...but that's for another day.


Time for me to be a smart donkey... 

Umm. If PQ is paramount then you wouldn't be getting your movie content from DirecTV even if they are doing 1080P because its still going to be processed/compressed lower quality material than Blu-Ray....

I'm just sayin...


----------



## rahlquist (Jul 24, 2007)

BudShark said:


> Time for me to be a smart donkey...
> 
> Umm. If PQ is paramount then you wouldn't be getting your movie content from DirecTV even if they are doing 1080P because its still going to be processed/compressed lower quality material than Blu-Ray....
> 
> I'm just sayin...


+1!


----------



## ShawnL25 (Mar 2, 2007)

IIP said:


> If color TVs were just coming out, and DirecTV advertised that they had color movies available, would they be lying about that, just because YOU only had a B&W TV and couldn't see their programming in color? Even if your neighbor, with the same service, could see it in color on his new color set?
> 
> IMO, no way.
> 
> ...


The TV I purchased was from the 1st line of DLP from Samsung to offer 1080p, it doesn't even do 1080p60 correctly much less 1080p24. So for me I gain nothing here. That said I was not as much disappointed as excited to learn that Directv was pushing out 1080p24. My DLP is great but I know that someday I will replace it with a better one. By D* going 1080p24 from the start those of us who have/will upgrade will be rewarded. Plus I watched the Bucket List, I switched it to 1080i and I found it to be very good quality. Not as good as some 1080p60 bluray movies I own but good. Why all the fuss. If it's not free I'm not going to use it any way.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

BudShark said:


> Time for me to be a smart donkey...
> 
> Umm. If PQ is paramount then you wouldn't be getting your movie content from DirecTV even if they are doing 1080P because its still going to be processed/compressed lower quality material than Blu-Ray....
> 
> I'm just sayin...


Agreed...but unless you're telling me they're going to be giving me an option to have Bluray quality, I'm not sure how that's relevant. I'm obviously not going to rely on DirecTV VOD for my primary movie watching (as I'm sure most of you won't) ...just a guess.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

IIP said:


> There are now plasmas and projectors with 72 and/or 96 Hz alternative refresh rates. I'm not aware of any that do 120 Hz, but it's not really necessary with plasma; 72 or 96 solves the 24p problem just fine.


I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Pioneer's been doing that since their first 1080p sets (I think). I was just saying I wouldn't buy an LCD b/c of the other pq limitations they present.

--Mav


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Maverickster said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Pioneer's been doing that since their first 1080p sets (I think). I was just saying I wouldn't buy an LCD b/c of the other pq limitations they present.
> 
> --Mav


Yes, I realize (and I'm a moderator so double shame on me...) I'm turning this thread, hopefully just for a short time.

I'm still learning, everyday usually. What PQ limitations of LCD do you feel are still present and what technology do you prefer?

Back on topic and not directed at Mav nor his post above, notice DIRECTV has not released 1080p24 to the general public. They won't release until all the parts are ready and high quality: providers (and content), firmware is rock solid on all the HR2x family, and the picture quality is as perfect as possible for all the modes the chips support.

Heck, since the same chips are in both DIRECTV's and Dish's DVRs, and broadcom supplies the base driver software for all their chips, I wouldn't be surprised if Dish got the exact same drivers from broadcom. But we shouldn't talk about what Dish might have gone national with... 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

LCD and plasma both have good points, but a lot of it depends on the ambient light, expected viewing angle, sensitivity to price, type of content (light versus dark material) for a particular installation.

I'm no expert, but I have heard a number of people summarize it as follows:

In a dark room, the color depth and accuracy of plasma is unrivaled, especially in scenes with darker colors
In a brighter room, LCD is more effective, but lacks the color depth of plasma in a controlled lighting environment
Early plasma screens had serious burn-in issues reported, though these reports are of questionable accuracy and extent
LCD, on average, is much cheaper than plasma
LCD, on average, has a considerably wider viewing angle


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

gregjones said:


> [*]Early plasma screens had serious burn-in issues reported, though these reports are of questionable accuracy and extent


One of our local stations news set has a plasma screen on it, normally they just have a background on it with their stations logo, but every now and then they do show some actual content on it, when they do you can still see the logon in a shadow in the picture.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

gregjones said:


> LCD and plasma both have good points, but a lot of it depends on the ambient light, expected viewing angle, sensitivity to price, type of content (light versus dark material) for a particular installation.
> 
> I'm no expert, but I have heard a number of people summarize it as follows:
> 
> ...


You forgot one thing: LCDs use waaay less power..


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

gregjones said:


> LCD, on average, has a considerably wider viewing angle


Hmmm, I think it's the other way around on this one.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Hmmm, I think it's the other way around on this one.


Have to agree with you, You need to get a good LCDto get viewing angle.. cheap ones can be realy bad :eek2:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Hmmm, I think it's the other way around on this one.


On the oldest LCD TVs, you are correct. These were overglorified monitors. On recent LCDs, the viewing angles are generally between 170 and 180 degrees.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Have to agree with you, You need to get a good LCDto get viewing angle.. cheap ones can be realy bad :eek2:


If it's an LCD computer monitor with an extra input, it will suck. If it is a decent LCD TV that is somewhat recent, this should not be the case.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm probably getting flamed on this comment but I'm gonna put it out there. I'd don't care if the LCD TV can produce a 1080p 24 fps image, since the PQ overall on most LCDs is crap. I said it. Don't get me started with "motion enhancement" on on the newer sets. Makes me nauseous.

I deal with a lot of different makes and models, and unless I have to, I won't install a LCD TV above 32 inches. The only time I do it is for direct lighting or cabinet size issues (Those Toshiba Regza slim fits are great replacements for older in-cabinet RPTV).

It sucks that most plasma, including my Panasonic 1080p Plasma, won't display 24fps off the DirecTV box, but it looks great at 1080p on Blu-ray anyway. When I have to I'll upgrade to a Pioneer Kuro Plasma.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

gregjones said:


> On the oldest LCD TVs, you are correct. These were overglorified monitors. On recent LCDs, the viewing angles are generally between 170 and 180 degrees.


Anything over 120 degrees or show isn't usable for serious watching.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

houskamp said:


> You forgot one thing: LCDs use waaay less power..


They also tend to weigh less (try lifting a 60 in. plasma onto a wall mount  )


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> Anything over 120 degrees or show isn't usable for serious watching.


I wouldn't want to try watching outside of 120 degrees myself. I call that putting the TV in the right place. But, just the same, I was merely conveying opinions I have heard a number of times.

Another rule of thumb I have heard was that LCD often is a good replacement for tube TV (similar pros/cons regarding lighting), where plasma tends to be a better replacement for a good projector.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Plasma offers a picture that is most like that of a CRT because it uses the same technology to product the image - electrons hitting a phosphor-coated screen. The electrons are just generated differently and travel a much shorter distance to reach the screen.

Now, back on topic! My take on all this is that it’s all marketing hoo-ha anyhow. This is nothing more than D* and E* playing cat and mouse with their technology in a war of words. It’s doubtful that Joe Sixpack can Joto tell the difference between 720p, 1080i, 1080p/24, 1080p/60, etc. To him, it’s all “high-def”. He bought the 1080p set because it had more pixels, and now D* has “1080p” so it’s all good! H doesn’t bother reading the fine print that mentions it’s only 1080p/24 on select VOD and is not currently support by 98% of the TV’s in American living rooms. Heck, he may even have that 1080p “high-def” connected to his cable box or receiver via S-video.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> LCD, on average, is much cheaper than plasma
> LCD, on average, has a considerably wider viewing angle


I think you have both of these backwards. LCDs tend to be more expensive when comparing sets of roughly equal size (which is part of the reason why plasmas still have a pretty decent market advantage in the larger sizes). Also, one of the "knocks" on LCD vis-a-vis plasma is their viewing angle.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Yes, I realize (and I'm a moderator so double shame on me...) I'm turning this thread, hopefully just for a short time.
> 
> I'm still learning, everyday usually. What PQ limitations of LCD do you feel are still present and what technology do you prefer?


Here's my take on it. Please note that this is one man's opinion speaking "in general" about a pretty hotly-debated question (i.e. don't flame me).

LCDs are much more versatile in terms of where you can put them (no need to worry much about ambient lighting since they tend to have matte screens), they're lighter, there's virtually no burn-in risk, and they consume less power. Those benefits come at a price, though. LCDs' motion handling tends to be subpar and, consequently, not ideal for viewing high-motion content like sports (sometimes you see this referred to as "motion blur"; I think some DLP manufacturers ran some ads exploiting this a while back); LCD manufacturers are introducing some nifty enhancements to try and overcome this limitation of the tech (sample and hold), but I haven't seen anything yet that comes close to matching the motion handling of a plasma. Also, the black levels on LCDs also tend to be much worse than on a plasma (which affects the accuracy and depth of all colors); again, LCD manufacturers are trying to address this (and some, like Samsung, are getting pretty close), but it's still not generally as good as it is on a plasma.

Plasmas, on the other hand, although heavier, more power hungry, and potentially "burn-in-able" (although, you'd really have to be trying on a Kuro or a Panny), handle motion nearly as well as a tube (because it's the same basic technology) and have MUCH better black levels which yields a better, truer picture with better more accurate color detail and a deeper picture. You need to be more careful where you put one since they have glossy screens (albeit generally treated with some sort of a/r coating), but I've got one in my very bright living room and it works well most of the time.

So, really, if you consider ONLY picture quality and take all of the other considerations out of the picture, it's a no-brainer, imo; plasma is the winner (and the Kuros, Kuro Elites, and Kuro Signatures are the winner amongst plasmas).

--Mav

P.S. It's also "conventional wisdom" that off-axis viewing is still a pretty big problem with LCD...again, it's a function of the way the screen "works". This is a non-issue for plasmas. Recent LCDs are getting better in this regard, but still not quite to the level of plasmas.

P.P.S. Although it's always a good idea to get a broad swath of information and data on this stuff, if you have the time and patience to wade through a lot of the crap, there's frequently some good info here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=40. Here's a thread discussing the relative merits of what is considered to be the best of the best plasma (Pioneer Kuro) and what should represent a marked step forward in terms of performance for LCDs (Samsung 950s) -- both represent really the bleeding edge of what their respective technologies have to offer, so it might be helpful: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1056710


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Maverickster said:


> Here's my take on it. Please note that this is one man's opinion speaking "in general" about a pretty hotly-debated question (i.e. don't flame me).
> 
> LCDs are much more versatile in terms of where you can put them (no need to worry much about ambient lighting since they tend to have matte screens), they're lighter, there's virtually no burn-in risk, and they consume less power. Those benefits come at a price, though. LCDs' motion handling tends to be subpar and, consequently, not ideal for viewing high-motion content like sports (sometimes you see this referred to as "motion blur"; I think some DLP manufacturers ran some ads exploiting this a while back); LCD manufacturers are introducing some nifty enhancements to try and overcome this limitation of the tech (sample and hold), but I haven't seen anything yet that comes close to matching the motion handling of a plasma. Also, the black levels on LCDs also tend to be much worse than on a plasma (which affects the accuracy and depth of all colors); again, LCD manufacturers are trying to address this (and some, like Samsung, are getting pretty close), but it's still not generally as good as it is on a plasma.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your thoughts. No flames from me, only appreciation for another person's opinion.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

VeniceDre said:


> I'm probably getting flamed on this comment but I'm gonna put it out there. I'd don't care if the LCD TV can produce a 1080p 24 fps image, since the PQ overall on most LCDs is crap. I said it. Don't get me started with "motion enhancement" on on the newer sets. Makes me nauseous.
> 
> I deal with a lot of different makes and models, and unless I have to, I won't install a LCD TV above 32 inches. The only time I do it is for direct lighting or cabinet size issues (Those Toshiba Regza slim fits are great replacements for older in-cabinet RPTV).
> 
> It sucks that most plasma, including my Panasonic 1080p Plasma, won't display 24fps off the DirecTV box, but it looks great at 1080p on Blu-ray anyway. When I have to I'll upgrade to a Pioneer Kuro Plasma.


I'll second everything this guy said. Now, back on topic. Oh yeah, I abandoned the topic.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

bobnielsen said:


> They also tend to weigh less (try lifting a 60 in. plasma onto a wall mount  )


True. I mounted my 58" Panny plasma on an articulating wall mount in my living room. For those of you keeping track at home, that's a 140 pound TV on a mount that itself weighs nearly 60 pounds. If that sucker comes down, they'll hear it two counties over.

--Mav


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> I think you have both of these backwards. LCDs tend to be more expensive when comparing sets of roughly equal size (which is part of the reason why plasmas still have a pretty decent market advantage in the larger sizes). Also, one of the "knocks" on LCD vis-a-vis plasma is their viewing angle.
> 
> --Mav


I can accept viewing angle. I have never once seen where the difference in viewing angles would matter to me. I tend to put seating in front of the screen.

My opinion on pricing is based on the terribly empirical model: I priced both for myself and found the LCDs to be several hundred to a thousand dollars cheaper for any size and quality I would consider in my home. YMMV.

EDIT: As I look now at similarly spec'd plasma and LCD displays, I am not seeing a huge difference in price. What was there when I was shopping for one is no longer. But even before, with the price difference I saw, I decided to wait it out a while before picking up the next set.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> True. I mounted my 58" Panny plasma on an articulating wall mount in my living room. For those of you keeping track at home, that's a 140 pound TV on a mount that itself weighs nearly 60 pounds. If that sucker comes down, they'll hear it two counties over.
> 
> --Mav


Does that come with the flying buttress do-it-yourself wall support kit, mav? You should be commended to your dedication to having HDTV, regardless of the amount of work.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> It's also "conventional wisdom" that off-axis viewing is still a pretty big problem with LCD...again, it's a function of the way the screen "works". This is a non-issue for plasmas. Recent LCDs are getting better in this regard, but still not quite to the level of plasmas.


This may well be a YMMV thing, since I can [right now] look over at my TV at about 170 degrees, and see "a sliver" of the screen, but what I can see looks "about right".


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> This may well be a YMMV thing, since I can [right now] look over at my TV at about 170 degrees, and see "a sliver" of the screen, but what I can see looks "about right".


Same here.. can't see the picture because of angle before I loose the quality 
Newer LCDs have made major leaps in many regards..


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ok, back to the original topic: 1080p VOD. 

:backtotop

(I knew I shouldn't have diverted the thread...)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Here's my take on it. Please note that this is one man's opinion speaking "in general" about a pretty hotly-debated question (i.e. don't flame me).
> <snip>
> 
> P.S. It's also "conventional wisdom" that off-axis viewing is still a pretty big problem with LCD...again, it's a function of the way the screen "works".


I don't know what your source for that "conventional wisdom" is, but given how wrong its is makes me question the rest of your opinions on the subject of LCD TVs.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This may well be a YMMV thing, since I can [right now] look over at my TV at about 170 degrees, and see "a sliver" of the screen, but what I can see looks "about right".


You can't mean that XBR2...I had that TV...I think we must have different definitions of acceptable off-axis viewing!  On this point, I'm just repeating the general consensus (even among LCD fans) that the off-axis viewing on plasmas is better.

As for pricing, it's conventional wisdom that plasmas are cheapier on a per square inch basis and that almost always bears out. It's kind of hard to do a one-for-one comparison right now some companies are in the middle of a model rollover, but let's take what is considered to be a top 2 or 3 LCD -- Sony's 46" 46XBR4 -- and ao top 2 or 3 Plasma - Panasonic's 50" 50PZ800U. The Sony's MSRP is $3300; you can get one on Amazon right now for $2400. The Panasonic's MSRP is $3000; you can get one on Amazon right now for $2250.

That's pretty close until you consider that the Panasonic is 4" larger and was launched in February '08, and still has another 6 months before its "newer" replacement arrives; whereas the Sony is 4" smaller and was launched in August of '07, and it's replacement is due on shelves in a matter of weeks.

This is anecdotal, of course, but it generally bears out across the board. Folks have done market studies on it; I think I saw a link to a recent one on AVS not that long ago.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> I don't know what your source for that "conventional wisdom" is, but given how wrong its is makes me question the rest of your opinions on the subject of LCD TVs.


It's not wrong. As compared to plasma's off-axis viewing, it's not even a contest. Without meaning to sound condescending AT ALL, do a little research on the subject matter and you'll see; even "LCD fans" acknowledge this. I'm not saying it's as horrible as it once was; I'm just saying it's not as good as it is on a plasma.

--Mav


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Maverickster said:


> I mounted my 58" Panny plasma on an articulating wall mount in my living room. For those of you keeping track at home, that's a 140 pound TV on a mount that itself weighs nearly 60 pounds.


Yikes. I'd be scared of doing that much weight on an articulating mount. I have a 42" plasma in the kitchen, which "only" weighs about 75lbs. It's on a tilt-mount (no articulation, and stays relatively snug against the wall), and I remember that mounting it was a particulary scary event. It seemed heavier than it really is, because we were lifting it above our heads, as it's mounted above a door. But I really try to avoid even touching it now that it's up. Interestingly enough, I just got (as in delivered about an hour ago) a 73" DLP to replace the 46" CRT based RPTV in the TV room... despite being about 3x the screen area, it only weighs 95lbs!

To make this more on topic... I don't even know what 1080p framerates the plasma accepts, or even if it does. The new DLP will accept 24, 30, and 60, although I'm very skeptical about it doing 24fps at proper 5:5 pulldown.


----------



## Igor (Jan 3, 2005)

Maverickster said:


> True. I mounted my 58" Panny plasma on an articulating wall mount in my living room. For those of you keeping track at home, that's a 140 pound TV on a mount that itself weighs nearly 60 pounds. If that sucker comes down, they'll hear it two counties over.
> 
> --Mav


This is the best way to find an oportunity to replace your TV by one that supports 1080p24


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> You can't mean that XBR2...


Yes and it's "brightness & color" are fine, even though I can't see but a sliver of the image at this angle.

[Sorry Tom this is my last post on this]


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> It's not wrong. As compared to plasma's off-axis viewing, it's not even a contest. Without meaning to sound condescending AT ALL, do a little research on the subject matter and you'll see; even "LCD fans" acknowledge this. I'm not saying it's as horrible as it once was; I'm just saying it's not as good as it is on a plasma.
> 
> --Mav


Calling it "a pretty big problem" is absolutely wrong, now matter how much you try to insist that it isn't, but I suspect that you know that and that's why you are now changing it to "it's not as good as plasma". Off axis LCD viewing at extreme angles may not be as good as plasma, but it's not and issue at all even at moderate angles and in no way "a pretty big problem" except at those extreme angles that nobody would want to watch at anyway. I don't know what angles you want to be able to watch TV at, but anything beyond about 45 degrees is annoying under any circumstances, and there is no significant color or brightness issues when viewing any good LCD TV even at that abnormally large angle.


----------



## yuppers519 (Aug 6, 2007)

I have to throw my 2 cents in. The 1080p vod of the bucket list looks pretty darn good on my 720p plasma. Actually i have to say WOW!
Thanks Directv.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Off axis LCD viewing at extreme angles may not be as good as plasma, but it's not and issue at all...


That just doesn't make any sense. Sort of by definition, if it's not as good as plasma, it's still an issue and still a shortcoming. Off-axis viewing on LCDs is one of those problems that used to be REALLY bad (just like the burn-in risk used to be for plasmas), but has gotten better (just like the burn-in risk with plasmas). Although it's gotten better (just like the burn-in risk with plasmas), it's still not eliminated (just like the burn-in risk with plasmas), and still isn't as good as a plasma in this regard (just like plasmas aren't as good as LCDs with respect to the burn-in risk). It may be "good enough" for you, but that doesn't mean it's "not an issue at all".



cartrivision said:


> ...but I suspect that you know that and that's why you are now changing it to "it's not as good as plasma".


Not changing it at all. What part of this IN MY ORIGINAL POST did you miss: "Recent LCDs are getting better in this regard, but still not quite to the level of plasmas."

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

DarinC said:


> Yikes. I'd be scared of doing that much weight on an articulating mount. I have a 42" plasma in the kitchen, which "only" weighs about 75lbs. It's on a tilt-mount (no articulation, and stays relatively snug against the wall), and I remember that mounting it was a particulary scary event. It seemed heavier than it really is, because we were lifting it above our heads, as it's mounted above a door. But I really try to avoid even touching it now that it's up. Interestingly enough, I just got (as in delivered about an hour ago) a 73" DLP to replace the 46" CRT based RPTV in the TV room... despite being about 3x the screen area, it only weighs 95lbs!
> 
> To make this more on topic... I don't even know what 1080p framerates the plasma accepts, or even if it does. The new DLP will accept 24, 30, and 60, although I'm very skeptical about it doing 24fps at proper 5:5 pulldown.


Yeah, it was sort of a frightening. Did a lot of research on the subject first. Ended up getting the Sanus VMDD26 mount and managed to get it into three studs (rather than the recommended minimum 2) in a weight-bearing wall. Even once we got it up there, I was concerned for awhile, but it works like a champ. Solid as a rock. I guess the engineers who put this stuff together know what they're doing! Still, when it's pulled out the full 26" from the wall, I still get something of an uneasy feeling, but it works; not so much as a jiggle.

--Mav


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Maverickster said:


> That just doesn't make any sense. Sort of by definition, if it's not as good as plasma, it's still an issue and still a shortcoming. Off-axis viewing on LCDs is one of those problems that used to be REALLY bad (just like the burn-in risk used to be for plasmas), but has gotten better (just like the burn-in risk with plasmas). Although it's gotten better (just like the burn-in risk with plasmas), it's still not eliminated (just like the burn-in risk with plasmas), and still isn't as good as a plasma in this regard (just like plasmas aren't as good as LCDs with respect to the burn-in risk). It may be "good enough" for you, but that doesn't mean it's "not an issue at all".
> 
> --Mav


Mav, It may be time for you to go look at [review] LCDs [again]. I don't have a plasma to compare, but your postings about LCD sounds so much like what happens with a laptop [had a new one here yesterday] but NOT with my XBR2 as the "change" in brightness/color doesn't happen until about 170 degrees. I just [again] moved from center to the left until there was a noticeable drop, which is so far off center as to be a "non-issue".


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I have Panny 1080P plasma but it doesn't support 24fps. To veiw 1080P vod I have to set the HR20-700 to native off and then it's 1080i. Since the majority of the sets, at least for now are 60/fps what is the purpose of sending 1080p in 24? Will the HR20s ever be able to convert 24 to 60?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> I have Panny 1080P plasma but it doesn't support 24fps. To veiw 1080P vod I have to set the HR20-700 to native off and then it's 1080i. Since the majority of the sets, at least for now are 60/fps what is the purpose of sending 1080p in 24? Will the HR20s ever be able to convert 24 to 60?


200+ posts "late". 
"purpose" is a clean small file size.
"Will", most likely not as the chips can't support it.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

What I want to make sure we don't forget is the real question. How good does it look. I love math as much as the next guy (actually much more than most of the next guys), but the only thing that really matters is how it looks on the screen.

I can tell you that the recording looked great on a 1080i display. It did look better than previous 1080i content I had seen and I am fairly critical. We can haggle over the "best" way or the "most correct" way, but we really need to spend some time commenting on how the movie looked on different display types and in different resolutions (1080p24,1080i,720p).


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

BubblePuppy said:


> I have Panny 1080P plasma but it doesn't support 24fps. To veiw 1080P vod I have to set the HR20-700 to native off and then it's 1080i. Since the majority of the sets, at least for now are 60/fps what is the purpose of sending 1080p in 24? Will the HR20s ever be able to convert 24 to 60?


Through no fault of your own you just made everyone sigh. There are a number of pages going through those questions in excrutiating detail. I wish I could tell you there was an easier way, but you probably need to read the whole thread. If there was a consensus, we would give it.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Mav, It may be time for you to go look at [review] LCDs [again]. I don't have a plasma to compare, but your postings about LCD sounds so much like what happens with a laptop [had a new one here yesterday] but NOT with my XBR2 as the "change" in brightness/color doesn't happen until about 170 degrees. I just [again] moved from center to the left until there was a noticeable drop, which is so far off center as to be a "non-issue".


Look, again, because it's a "non-issue" for you and apparently for Mr. Cartrivision does not mean it's not an issue at all. I've had your exact same TV in my living room in the exact same place where my Panny plasma now resides and the difference between the two is night and day. That anecdotal evidence, coupled with my personal experience in "auditioning" these recently, coupled with the "general consensus" among even LCD fans over at AVS and other places, all suggest that while LCDs have gotten better, this is still an area where plasmas have an edge.

It may be time for you guys to go look at plasmas to see what I'm referring to in terms of the difference between how they perform vis-a-vis LCDs for off-axis viewing. I really don't care that much, but it's simply false to say that that problem has been "solved" for LCDs. Is it better than it was? Absolutely. Is it completely fixed? No. Is this a reason, in and of itself, to buy a plasma over an LCD? IMHO, no, but different strokes.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "purpose" is a clean small file size.


...and to give those who have 1080p/24 capable sets the ability to use it in its native format...

Incidentally, while on the subject, have any of you checked out Channel 1001? Even though I'm on the latest NR and not the CE (so I'm not getting it in 1080p, but rather, am getting it in 720p if "native on" and 1080i if "native off"), I have to say, The Bucket List looked remarkable. I pulled some of the other stuff off of 1001 (like "21") and it looked alright, but not nearly as good as The Bucket List did for whatever reason.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Through no fault of your own you just made everyone [sic] groan.


edited for accuracy.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Mav, 
"Have an edge" is one thing [which I won't dispute], but "night and day" is simply wrong, and cause to wonder about your posts in total now [for me].
BTW: this is for indoor veiwing, outside may be another story.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Mav,
> "Have an edge" is one thing [which I won't dispute], but "night and day" is simply wrong, and cause to wonder about your posts in total now [for me].
> BTW: this is for indoor veiwing, outside may be another story.


The "night and day" reference was meant to refer only to the difference between the off-axis capabilities of the three generations old 46xbr2 and and the one generation old 58pz700u -- both of which I had in my living room in the exact same spot. Really, it was night and day to me. Try it yourself. Go get a plasma TV and put it in your room where you have your xbr2. You'll see what I mean.

Again, I'm not saying the LCD isn't watchable (and, in fact, have gotten even more watchable than your xbr2 over the last couple of years); but what I am saying is that it doesn't perform as well as a plasma in this department. That's it. I'm not sure why that would make you wonder about my posts in total now, but to each his own. Really, I'm glad you like your TV (so do I, actually) and I'm glad you're happy with how it handles off-axis viewing, but my point is only that it just doesn't handle off-axis viewing as well as a plasma. That's a hard point to argue with.

--Mav


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Through no fault of your own you just made everyone sigh. There are a number of pages going through those questions in excrutiating detail. I wish I could tell you there was an easier way, but you probably need to read the whole thread. If there was a consensus, we would give it.


Sorry.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Last post on this Mav, [again sorry Tom]
Not having "super pooper" plasma, I can't compare, but understand the technology/function. They "have an edge" over LCD.
Describing my 19 month old TV as "three generations old" doesn't change how it works, and it is simply "impossible" for a plasma [of any type] to be "night and day" different with its off axis viewing at any angle worth watching the screen, UNLESS it was placed in direct sunlight, which mine is not.
I end up questioning those that make "unrealistic" statements.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

I apologize if this question has been answered here already but...
where will the 1080p movies be in the VOD section, 
in their own section?
or rather how will I know which movies are 1080p in the menu?

I can't seem to recognize any there now


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Last post on this Mav, [again sorry Tom]
> Not having "super pooper" plasma, I can't compare, but understand the technology/function. They "have an edge" over LCD.
> Describing my 19 month old TV as "three generations old" doesn't change how it works, and it is simply "impossible" for a plasma [of any type] to be "night and day" different with its off axis viewing at any angle worth watching the screen, UNLESS it was placed in direct sunlight, which mine is not.
> I end up questioning those that make "unrealistic" statements.


Nevermind. This is digressing in a way I wasn't intending AT ALL. Any TV placed in direct sunlight (plasma or LCD alike) is going to have trouble being viewed at all -- head on or to the side -- so I'm not sure what the point there is. The only thing I meant by dating our TVs was to imply that they've actually gotten even better since then. That's all. No "super pooper" intended; I mean, geez, my TV doesn't even do 1080p/24! Ha! Again, question what you will, but that's my experience.

--Mav


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

SteveHas said:


> I apologize if this question has been answered here already but...
> where will the 1080p movies be in the VOD section,
> in their own section?
> or rather how will I know which movies are 1080p in the menu?
> ...


don't want to be nudge, but we get back on topic please?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

SteveHas said:


> don't want to be nudge, but we get back on topic please?


So, have you come in late?
Channel 1080


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> So, have you come in late?
> Channel 1080


Yes I have

I tries searching but was unsuccessful

thanks


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> Look, again, because it's a "non-issue" for you and apparently for Mr. Cartrivision does not mean it's not an issue at all. I've had your exact same TV in my living room in the exact same place where my Panny plasma now resides and the difference between the two is night and day. That anecdotal evidence, coupled with my personal experience in "auditioning" these recently, coupled with the "general consensus" among even LCD fans over at AVS and other places, all suggest that while LCDs have gotten better, this is still an area where plasmas have an edge.
> 
> It may be time for you guys to go look at plasmas to see what I'm referring to in terms of the difference between how they perform vis-a-vis LCDs for off-axis viewing. I really don't care that much, but it's simply false to say that that problem has been "solved" for LCDs. Is it better than it was? Absolutely. Is it completely fixed? No. Is this a reason, in and of itself, to buy a plasma over an LCD? IMHO, no, but different strokes.
> 
> --Mav


Why on earth would we want to look at plasmas when our LCDs have no drop off problem until we approach extreme of axis angles greater than 120 degrees?

Give it up. You are wrong. Your statements about LCD TVs are nothing but FUD. If you want to watch TV from 175 degrees off axis, enjoy your plasma, while I and other others enjoy ourLCDs that have no drop off issues from any reasonable viewing angle.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

cartrivision said:


> Give it up. You are wrong. Your statements about LCD TVs are nothing but FUD.


FUD, huh? Since I owned one and have actually compared them side-by-side in my own living room, that's pretty much impossible. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion (no matter how poor the understanding upon which that opinion is based). Enjoy your TV.

--Mav


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

SteveHas said:


> Yes I have
> 
> I tries searching but was unsuccessful
> 
> thanks


I don't think it's "up" yet since the 1080p stuff is still in CE. There was some stuff up at 1001 yesterday, but that appears to have since been taken down.

--Mav


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

VeniceDre said:


> I'm probably getting flamed on this comment but I'm gonna put it out there. I'd don't care if the LCD TV can produce a 1080p 24 fps image, since the PQ overall on most LCDs is crap. I said it. Don't get me started with "motion enhancement" on on the newer sets. Makes me nauseous.


I'm continually baffled by this. The first time I saw Automotion Plus on the Samsung -71f at the store, I was simply amazed. It's the first time I've actually been wowed since I saw HDTV for the first time 8 years ago. I don't know why, but it seems to eliminate the grain from films, which has been a flaw of the medium since motion pictures were invented in the 1890's. What's not to like?


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

jasonblair said:


> I don't know why, but it seems to eliminate the grain from films, which has been a flaw of the medium since motion pictures were invented in the 1890's. What's not to like?


That makes it sound like it's removing detail. Some people don't like grain, while others prefer to have the system represent the image as closely as possible to the original (grain is often specifically added for effect, such as War of the Worlds). Everyone has their own taste, and should buy what best fits their needs and preferences. But _personally_, if an electronic system is put in place to address a certain issue (in this case, the lower response time of LCD), and it ends up also taking "something" out of the original picture, that doesn't sound like something I would want.


----------



## coota (Apr 10, 2007)

Will any of the "Movies Now" be in 1080P?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<Moderator warning>

No more LCD/Plasma in this thread. They will be deleted henceforth. I don't care if the sidebar is incomplete or not. They will be deleted.

Thank you,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

coota said:


> Will any of the "Movies Now" be in 1080P?


Unknown at this time. I won't be surprised, tho.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Unknown at this time. I won't be surprised, tho.


u also thought favre wouldnt go to another team. :lol:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jasonblair said:


> I'm continually baffled by this. The first time I saw Automotion Plus on the Samsung -71f at the store, I was simply amazed. It's the first time I've actually been wowed since I saw HDTV for the first time 8 years ago. I don't know why, but it seems to eliminate the grain from films, which has been a flaw of the medium since motion pictures were invented in the 1890's. What's not to like?


Graininess is definitely an aspect the [strike]DIRECTV[/strike] director and cinematographer decide during the production. Film can be crystal clear if desired; rarely do they *want *the picture that clear.

Cheer,
Tom

Edit: Thanks jasonblair for catching my bad...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

coota said:


> Will any of the "Movies Now" be in 1080P?


What we need to figure out is how much space a 1080P movie is taking up per hour vs. a 1080i movie. If the difference is negligible, then I would expect all movies now to be done in 1080P....

From my calculations on my unit, it takes up about the same amount of space as 1080i...

Of course if that is accurate, how long before Directv starts sending all there channels down in 1080P? (as soon as the boxes all have the right firmware maybe? )


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> What we need to figure out is how much space a 1080P movie is taking up per hour vs. a 1080i movie. If the difference is negligible, then I would expect all movies now to be done in 1080P....
> 
> From my calculations on my unit, it takes up about the same amount of space as 1080i...
> 
> Of course if that is accurate, how long before Directv starts sending all there channels down in 1080P? (as soon as the boxes all have the right firmware maybe? )


A 1080p24 will take less space than 1080i30 as there aren't the extra garbage frames added in.

BTW, does anyone know if progressive frames compress better or the same as interlaced frames? Seems like whole frames make the motion detection and therefor compression better and easier.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> A 1080p24 will take less space than 1080i30 as there aren't the extra garbage frames added in.
> 
> BTW, does anyone know if progressive frames compress better or the same as interlaced frames? Seems like whole frames make the motion detection and therefor compression better and easier.
> 
> ...


Tom,

Completely agree, if that's all your looking at... However, from what I've seen of 1080P from Directv, they are also using a much higher bit rate, because there is far better color depth.

If anyone wonders about the differences in bit rates, just pick up The 5th element in regular cheap form dvd, and then pick up the superbit version... they are both DVD resolutions, but there is one heck of a picture difference.. and that takes more HD space... Which is why Superbit discs only have the movie, and multiple soundtracks, and no commentary and other extras... There's no space for them.

So that is why I wonder how comparable the size of files differences will be between 1080i and 1080p material from Directv.

Again, I also still think we will see 1080P broadcasting from Directv soon.... Not just VOD.

It has been mentioned many times that stations like HBO are mastering all there films in HD MPEG-4... Does anyone know if they are doing it so that it can be easily deliver in 1080i or 1080p?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> Tom,
> 
> Completely agree, if that's all your looking at... However, from what I've seen of 1080P from Directv, they are also using a much higher bit rate, because there is far better color depth.
> 
> ...


OK, you caught me being sloppy. 

For the same PQ 1080p24 will be less space then 1080i--actually it will be even better PQ. 

_The Fifth Element_ is often mentioned for that very reason. It's used by others for artifact analysis. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> OK, you caught me being sloppy.
> 
> For the same PQ 1080p24 will be less space then 1080i--actually it will be even better PQ.
> 
> ...


The devil is always in the details of the wording, isn't it?

Hey, so here is something else to ponder... If Directv can get firmware upgrades to all MPEG-4 HD boxes, which I think it should be able too, that would allow them all to receive 1080P broadcasts, how much bandwidth would Directv save? Would it allow them enough additional space to add 1 more channel per transponder than showing everything in 1080i without needed to change compression rates and still deliver the same great pic quality? That would be what, another 28 channels or so? 

I love speculating...


----------



## eandras (Feb 16, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Last post on this Mav, [again sorry Tom]
> Not having "super pooper" plasma, I can't compare, but understand the technology/function. They "have an edge" over LCD.
> Describing my 19 month old TV as "three generations old" doesn't change how it works, and it is simply "impossible" for a plasma [of any type] to be "night and day" different with its off axis viewing at any angle worth watching the screen, UNLESS it was placed in direct sunlight, which mine is not.
> I end up questioning those that make "unrealistic" statements.


VOS, MAV is having an episode of mine is better than yours. But in reality who cares about his opinions at this point. I buy what I can afford I try and live with in my means. I have two LCD's and I really don't care that his plasma is better than my two off brand sets. But my off brand sets can do 1080P/24.

Ed


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> I don't think it's "up" yet since the 1080p stuff is still in CE. There was some stuff up at 1001 yesterday, but that appears to have since been taken down.
> 
> --Mav


thanks Mav


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> What we need to figure out is how much space a 1080P movie is taking up per hour vs. a 1080i movie. If the difference is negligible, then I would expect all movies now to be done in 1080P....
> 
> From my calculations on my unit, it takes up about the same amount of space as 1080i...
> 
> Of course if that is accurate, how long before Directv starts sending all there channels down in 1080P? (as soon as the boxes all have the right firmware maybe? )


bit rates I'm seeing from the test movie thru pcplayback are very close to the regular HD..


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> A 1080p24 will take less space than 1080i30 as there aren't the extra garbage frames added in.
> 
> BTW, does anyone know if progressive frames compress better or the same as interlaced frames?


The "garbage" frames, if done correctly, don't consume any significant space. the MPEG encoding should simply add repeat flags. So the same number of "pictures" are encoded, but certain frames are flagged to be repeated.

And yes, progressive frames do encode more efficiently.


----------



## Maverickster (Sep 20, 2007)

eandras said:


> VOS, MAV is having an episode of mine is better than yours. But in reality who cares about his opinions at this point. I buy what I can afford I try and live with in my means. I have two LCD's and I really don't care that his plasma is better than my two off brand sets. But my off brand sets can do 1080P/24.
> 
> Ed


[Tom: Last comment on the matter.]

Not at all. In subsequent conversations with VOS on the issue, I realize it may have come off that way, and I'm sorry for that. That's not at all what was intended. I own and have owned both for different viewing conditions. I didn't mean to impugne anyone's choices in that regard. To each his own. Both techs have their merits...and if the Samsung 950 is all it's cracked up to be, I may have a Panny plasma for sale soon...

As for the 1080p/24 comment, touche, touche...

--Mav


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Of course if that is accurate, how long before Directv starts sending all there channels down in 1080P? (as soon as the boxes all have the right firmware maybe? )


Can't all the boxes that get MPEG4 receive the 1080p signal and make it 1080i or 720p? That would mean all boxes can see the 1080p and they could switch now. I can't see having 1080i and 1080p versions of the same movie if everyone can see the 1080p and some get the benefit of the 1080p.


----------



## techrep (Sep 15, 2007)

Maverickster said:


> [Tom: Last comment on the matter.]
> 
> Not at all. In subsequent conversations with VOS on the issue, I realize it may have come off that way, and I'm sorry for that. That's not at all what was intended. I own and have owned both for different viewing conditions. I didn't mean to impugne anyone's choices in that regard. To each his own. Both techs have their merits...and if the Samsung 950 is all it's cracked up to be, I may have a Panny plasma for sale soon...
> 
> ...


"Gutsyist move I ever saw"


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Graininess is definitely an aspect the DIRECTV and cinematographer decide during the production. Film can be crystal clear if desired; rarely do they *want *the picture that clear.
> 
> Cheer,
> Tom


I assume you mean the DIRECTOR and the cinematographer decide on? (Getting a little Pavlovian in your typing habits, Tom?)


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

jasonblair said:


> I assume you mean the DIRECTOR and the cinematographer decide on? (Getting a little Pavlovian in your typing habits, Tom?)


The fingers just type sequences. Once in awhile I type the wrong one. 

Yes, the director and the cinematographer... Thanks for the catch.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

I just figured it was some form of Tourette's syndrome.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

If so, you'd see the filters put more *****s into my messages...


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> What we need to figure out is how much space a 1080P movie is taking up per hour vs. a 1080i movie. If the difference is negligible, then I would expect all movies now to be done in 1080P....
> 
> From my calculations on my unit, it takes up about the same amount of space as 1080i...
> 
> Of course if that is accurate, how long before Directv starts sending all there channels down in 1080P? (as soon as the boxes all have the right firmware maybe? )


They can never send all the channels down in 1080p/24.... only the ones that exclusively have 24fps source material, i.e. only PPV movie channels. All other 1080i channels have at best a combination of 24fps source material and interlaced source material that changes at a 60Hz rate and therefore can't be encoded in it's entirety in a 1080p/24 signal.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> A 1080p24 will take less space than 1080i30 as there aren't the extra garbage frames added in.


There should be no difference. If done properly, the duplicate frames are encoded once and then single encoded frames are just repeated on the decode side.



> BTW, does anyone know if progressive frames compress better or the same as interlaced frames? Seems like whole frames make the motion detection and therefor compression better and easier.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


_Progressive source material_ does compress better (more efficiently) than _interlaced source material_, but that is something very different from taking the same progressive source material (like a 24fps movie) and either encoding it as 1080p or 1080i. Since what we are discussing doing is the latter, there should be no difference in bandwidth needed for 1080p/24 as opposed to 1080i. Both will require the same bit-rate for an equivalent picture quality.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Can't all the boxes that get MPEG4 receive the 1080p signal and make it 1080i or 720p? That would mean all boxes can see the 1080p and they could switch now. I can't see having 1080i and 1080p versions of the same movie if everyone can see the 1080p and some get the benefit of the 1080p.


At the moment, while the HR20 will play back a 1080p movie through 1080i and other resolutions, the picture is constantly moving (not what was shot, but the framing) so they have a little work to do before its all squared away. And they haven't even activated the HR21's for 1080P, so you wouldn't want to send out movies to those boxes when they could have issues...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> They can never send all the channels down in 1080p/24.... only the ones that exclusively have 24fps source material, i.e. only PPV movie channels. All other 1080i channels have at best a combination of 24fps source material and interlaced source material that changes at a 60Hz rate and therefore can't be encoded in it's entirety in a 1080p/24 signal.


So why not the premium channels, like HBO and Encore, that just show movies all the time, that are probably mastered in 1080P/24?

And who says that within the next 10 years, everything produced on the market won't be done in 1080P/24? It could happen....


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> So why not the premium channels, like HBO and Encore, that just show movies all the time, that are probably mastered in 1080P/24?
> 
> And who says that within the next 10 years, everything produced on the market won't be done in 1080P/24? It could happen....


There will always be programming whose source is interlaced or progressive video refreshed at 60Hz, and unless a channel has exclusively 24fps film based source material, it's going to be broadcast in 1080i or 720p.

I'm not sure about Encore, but HBO and Showtime definitely have a mix of interlaced 60Hz video and 24fps film as original source for their programming, so you will probably never see a 1080p/24 HBO or Showtime feed.


----------

