Hopper future feature 1080i - 720p Channel Switch ?
- Thread starter space86
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 5K
Historically Dish receivers never had pass through resolution. Doubt they would add it to the Hopper.
Tried the native resolution when I had the Directv hd box and it only slowed down the time each channel loaded . I quickly turned it off.
The reason for using native pass through on Directv is that usually your display device does a better job of scaling the picture to your panel or projector's 1080P resolution. If the Hopper or the Directv DVR had better scaling electronics then native pass through wouldn't be necessary. Perhaps this is why I have seen multiple comments over the past few years that Directv's HD picture was marginally better than Dish's. Believe me, when you are watching a projected picture on a 100"+ screen you can see the difference between native and DVR scaled video.
By the time Dish and Direct have gotten the signal from the network, recompressed it for MPEG4, and sent it off to the DVR, I'm dubious how much gain native passthrough gets you anyway. That said, I'd give it a try if it were available 
I tried the native switch with Direct when I had them a couple years back. I found that it was taking too much time for my TV to respond. Not sure if it was really the TV or the DVR box. I flipped it off and never tried it again after that.
I have the same feelings about the MPEG4 compression as greg.
I have the same feelings about the MPEG4 compression as greg.
Native resolution has a lot of fans on the DirecTV side, but I can't figure out why. I could only tolerate it for a few minutes myself. I suppose they think it gives them a better picture. AFAIK, most displays simply scale instead of upconvert, so native on 480i will result in simply zooming on an already terrible picture. 720 is better, but I highly doubt the video processing in your average TV is better than the Hopper's. As others have said, all it provides is an excruciatingly slow channel changing experience and at best a false sense of better picture quality.
The poster that speculated native may be the reason DirecTV has slightly better picture quality is incorrect. DirecTV has better picture quality because it's higher resolution than Dish to begin with.
The poster that speculated native may be the reason DirecTV has slightly better picture quality is incorrect. DirecTV has better picture quality because it's higher resolution than Dish to begin with.
The easiest way to solve that problem is set it to 720p and forget it,unless you have the Logitech Revue then it's 1080p.
It all depends on your display, but I would recommend setting to 1080i and letting your TV do the scaling work.
And I always thought DirecTV had slightly better PQ than DISH, because they have less basic HD channels which would give them more bandwith breathing room.
Whatever the broadcaster sends them.
Don't get me wrong. I'll take 1440x1080 over breathing room any day. My middle-aged eyes can't tell the difference anyway.And I always thought DirecTV had slightly better PQ than DISH, because they have less basic HD channels which would give them more bandwith breathing room.
The most sold brand of HDTV, Vizio, aint gonna do a better job of ANYTHING, let alone scaling than a 3rd party STB. Most folks don't watch on a 100" white wall, so in real world with the vast majority of the McCoys, the whole Native vs. fixed resolution is not going to make an appreciable difference (provided the STB as a decent scaler to begin with, and Dish, DirecTV, and TiVo do) to even the most finicky power user/engineer on the most common size of displays. The days of all or even most HDTV's doing a better job of scaling ended YEARS ago. HELLO CHINA!!! Of course some of the very high end HDTV's may have the electronics to do a better job, but not the HDTV's the masses are buying.
Further, if one is really concerned about superior PQ, then the whole TV scaler vs. STB becomes even LESS relevant because those folks would have a high-end AV Receiver with IDT HQV or Faroudja or even a simple DVDO do the real work. Now those technologies make a difference one can really see and appreciate, and they ain't in any mass market HDTV's I'm aware of except for the flagship models that cost more than a house payment (proprietary HDTV brand versions for the lower model HDTV's for sale, but NONE of those are at the level of the 3rd party folks) or in high-end Blu-ray players like Oppo, but if they are, let us know. Otherwise we're talking EXPENSIVE external or built in the Yamaha or Onkyo or whoever incorporates such high-end processing into the high-end, expensive AV Receiver.
Cleaning things up and superior de-interlacing and upconversion--even in more stages--can go much further to providing a noticeable improvement to PQ than the Native vs. Fixed resolution, even with one less stage. I think sometimes we tend to get stuck in the old ruts of thinking. Native resolution made a difference on older HDTV's and STB's a long time ago, but not so much today as the scalers and other electronics in most HDTV's and STB's do an adequate job of scaling and upconversion such that no difference can really be appreciable. Today, it is video processing in general, not the old native vs. fixed.
Yes, and the LAG of the Native setting is so annoying, especially when people can't even see a difference to a fixed resolution output, except for those 100" white walls or motorized screens that are so common in living rooms today. Talk about the Wife Factor!
Further, if one is really concerned about superior PQ, then the whole TV scaler vs. STB becomes even LESS relevant because those folks would have a high-end AV Receiver with IDT HQV or Faroudja or even a simple DVDO do the real work. Now those technologies make a difference one can really see and appreciate, and they ain't in any mass market HDTV's I'm aware of except for the flagship models that cost more than a house payment (proprietary HDTV brand versions for the lower model HDTV's for sale, but NONE of those are at the level of the 3rd party folks) or in high-end Blu-ray players like Oppo, but if they are, let us know. Otherwise we're talking EXPENSIVE external or built in the Yamaha or Onkyo or whoever incorporates such high-end processing into the high-end, expensive AV Receiver.
Cleaning things up and superior de-interlacing and upconversion--even in more stages--can go much further to providing a noticeable improvement to PQ than the Native vs. Fixed resolution, even with one less stage. I think sometimes we tend to get stuck in the old ruts of thinking. Native resolution made a difference on older HDTV's and STB's a long time ago, but not so much today as the scalers and other electronics in most HDTV's and STB's do an adequate job of scaling and upconversion such that no difference can really be appreciable. Today, it is video processing in general, not the old native vs. fixed.
Yes, and the LAG of the Native setting is so annoying, especially when people can't even see a difference to a fixed resolution output, except for those 100" white walls or motorized screens that are so common in living rooms today. Talk about the Wife Factor!
Last edited:
Seriously. I can't even get the wife to sign off on a projection setup for my mancave *that she never even sets foot in*. (I could probably do almost anything I wanted down there except for the "slip that into the household budget" part
)Seriously. I can't even get the wife to sign off on a projection setup for my mancave *that she never even sets foot in*. (I could probably do almost anything I wanted down there except for the "slip that into the household budget" part
Funny!
You might be right that the Hopper has improved the scaling over Dish's previous DVRs but I don't understand your last statement. How does Directv have higher resolution than Dish to begin with?
I think he is referring to the fact that for 1080i channels, Dish re-encodes it at the 1440X1080 HD approved standard and not the 1920X1080 resolution that is sent to MVPD's by the channel content providers. Some folks grumble about this slightly lower resolution, but it is among the approved HD standards (some OTA broadcasters are doing this, too). However, it is often bit rate, not necessarily slightly lower resolution, that can have a much bigger impact on HD PQ (DirecTV's Ka sats used for its HD channels have transponders with greater bandwidth than Dish's DBS Ku sats it uses for HD channels, so DirecTV has an advantage there). In other words a full 1920X1080 at a lower bit rate can look WORSE than a 1440X1080 higher bit rate. In addition, the Dish STB's can further take advantage of low bit rates and resolutions with software and processing before outputting to your HDTV that can provide a PQ that looks like it was sent at higher bit rate and resolution. Also, there are other ways of reducing the data needed on a xpndr or OTA channel that could also be worse to PQ than slightly lower resolution such as lower chrominance data, lower luminance data, etc., but the use of Turbo Coding (used by Dish for HD channels) can allow for higher throughput (more data) in the same limited bandwidth, thereby not having to reduce other picture data nor use as much compression than without Turbo Coding.
Also, one has only to view some of our LA OTA digitals to see how inferior the HD PQ is when local broadcsters are running an HD channel at about half the bit OR LESS, even at a presumed full resolution, rate to accommodate other multiplex (sometimes referred to as sub-channels) channels on the same stream, and KABC shoving TWO HD channels (at 720P with the 2nd HD channel at a noticeably inferior PQ that is probably at a lower bit rate, and it could also be at a lower horizontal resolution) and an SD takes it toll, especially since OTA broadcasters are stuck using MPEG2 (instead of the far more efficient MPEG4--more channels using less bandwidth with superior PQ--as Dish and Direct do) and an effective maximum 19Mbs bandwidth in which to cram all this. I have found Dish's 1440X1080 to be often superior to some of our big network locals I have viewed LIVE using OTA antenna via TiVo or DIRECTLY into my HDTV. Yes, FiOS would be noticeably superior at the full 1920X1080 at a generous bit rate, and I would love that in the perfect world (FiOS can't necessarily improve the inferior OTA being sent to it) but I've found that Dish HD running directly into my TV can be pretty impressive, and even more so with my AV receiver processing chip and a DVDO on another HDTV. I find it an acceptable compromise. However, I understand why some do not, and are irked by it, and I agree it ought to be full resolution for those fancy HDTV's we buy, but except for FiOS, nobody achieves that, not even most broadcasters. I will say that KCBS seems to be noticeable superior to ANY other LA OTA and I wouldn't be surprised if they are running full resolution at full bit rate. Keep in mind that while Blu-ray can provide around 30Mbs, I don't think there is any HDTV channel content provider running at more than 19Mbps per content "channel" to MVPD's. Once you start watching Blu-ray enough, even the best full resolution at full bit rate OTA starts to look pretty diminished and not so impressive, after all.
Last edited:
I don't know why you couldn't supply a little more detail in your answer LA. Way too short.
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)
Latest posts
-
Allen Media to try and sell TV stations they own- Latest: localclassictvfan
-
