How many Dish channels are 1080P ? NOV 2015

[robertjp]

Anyone know how many 1080p channels are available on Dish? Im in the market for a new TV and trying to decide between 4k and 1080p. My thinking is there is not much content anywhere including OTA of 1080P let alone 4k. I think 4k is 5 yrs away from being mainstream, I mean we cant even get much 1080P from what I understand. I have a hopper and I dont see where to find the resolution of the current program. Even my locals in Western NY are in the 1080i or 720p. Thoughts? Thanks BP

 

[n0qcu]

ZERO
There are not any 1080p channels.
1080p is only available on VOD or Blu-ray

 

[Juan]

or cable..

 

[Bobby]

There are no 1080P channels available anywhere on satellite, cable, or OTA, except for VOD. I, personally, would go for a 4K simply because they will upscale any program to 4K....

 

[robertjp]

So than 4k is a total joke if theres not even any 1080p right? I mean like HDTV has been out 10 yrs or so and still no 1080P. Wow, Im shocked! Forget 4k then.

 

[robertjp]

Is the 4k upscaling noticeable better than the broadcast version of 1080i?

 

[Bobby]

People on this site with 4Ks say so....

 

[ChadT41]

If you are looking at the two, and price is not the factor, go for the 4K. If price is a factor, and it's a big difference, go with 1080P. Those with 4K seem to be satisfied with their decision, especially considering things like OITNB is available in 4K... From what I have read. There is shows available 4K as well, such as Chicago Fire, whenever Dish decides to release the 4K setup. Hopefully they achieve those shows on their system. All in all, the common concensus is that it looks far better, but price has been the factor for most.

 

[Tampa8]

This article is basically what I have found so far comparing 1080P/I material on a 4K TV.
http://www.cnet.com/news/can-4k-tvs-make-1080p-look-better/

On the 4K tv's I could afford it might be a step backwards, I could tell our local channels on cable did not look as good on a 4K tv than on a nearby 1080P capable TV. On a very expensive Samsung and Sony they looked at least as good, but way out of my price range, and keep in mind even a cheap 1080P TV looked about as good as the very expensive 4K when showing cable channels. There was a middle of the road (cost) 4K LG TV that did look good with cable oddly perhaps better than the expensive sets I mentioned. I will caution, getting the settings correct for any TV can make a huge difference and the TV's in a store like Bestbuy are not set up correctly though in the Magnolia section some stores do make an effort to get the picture settings better. Some TV's are better out of the box than others and on the showroom floor therefore look better. But get the settings calibrated correctly and some others may end up looking better. Those that say the 4K showing satellite/cable can look better than a 1080P TV may not be imagining it, as once they get the settings done in their home the picture may be very good. How well a TV upscales plays a big role.

If I was buying today I'm not saying I would not buy a 4K but I would have to be convinced the picture for non 4K material looked at least as good as a less expensive 1080P TV.

 

[BBruin66]

This article is basically what I have found so far comparing 1080P/I material on a 4K TV.
http://www.cnet.com/news/can-4k-tvs-make-1080p-look-better/

On the 4K tv's I could afford it might be a step backwards, I could tell our local channels on cable did not look as good on a 4K tv than on a nearby 1080P capable TV. On a very expensive Samsung and Sony they looked at least as good, but way out of my price range, and keep in mind even a cheap 1080P TV looked about as good as the very expensive 4K when showing cable channels. There was a middle of the road (cost) 4K LG TV that did look good with cable oddly perhaps better than the expensive sets I mentioned. I will caution, getting the settings correct for any TV can make a huge difference and the TV's in a store like Bestbuy are not set up correctly though in the Magnolia section some stores do make an effort to get the picture settings better. Some TV's are better out of the box than others and on the showroom floor therefore look better. But get the settings calibrated correctly and some others may end up looking better. Those that say the 4K showing satellite/cable can look better than a 1080P TV may not be imagining it, as once they get the settings done in their home the picture may be very good. How well a TV upscales plays a big role.

If I was buying today I'm not saying I would not buy a 4K but I would have to be convinced the picture for non 4K material looked at least as good as a less expensive 1080P TV.

I don't understand how it could look worse except for the image processor or maybe dejudder settings cranked? With the pixel mapping being 1x1 square 1080 pixel equals 2x2 4k pixels it doesn't need to force anything that could LOSE data.
That being said, I don't understand how it could look better either, unless people LIKE the dejudder/image processing effects that they don't have or don't use with their current TV? Especially with Dish's channels, you're up-scaling 1080i trash...

My guess is it comes down to overscan/native pixel to pixel settings of the TV? New TV or old TV?

I'm at a loss to explain 4k up-scaling, other than the many other things that lead to image quality other than the resolution of a TV and people not realizing those are actually making the difference.

Now that I read your posted CNET article.... I guess I agree with what they are saying.

 

[MikeD-C05]

So basically the article is saying that if you have real 4k content , you will see a great picture. If you are using ota/sat/cable, you will not , because you can't get blood from a turnip. The poor source will only show more flaws upconverted. So you are better off waiting for real 4k content before you invest in a 4k tv. Unless you get an expensive 4k tv with a good upscaler and then sit really close to it, so you can see the difference in picture quality. I already did this same dance last decade when hd came out and the picture looked like crap on most sd channels ,which were the norm back then. I'll wait on 4k till there is actual 4k out there to watch over satellite or ota if ever.

 

[robertjp]

Im sitting 9 feet away so I guess 1080P should be fine. As I understand it, unless you are 2-3 feet away, the naked eye cant see the difference and since I wear glasses, probably so.

 

[BBruin66]

So basically the article is saying that if you have real 4k content , you will see a great picture. If you are using ota/sat/cable, you will not , because you can't get blood from a turnip. The poor source will only show more flaws upconverted. So you are better off waiting for real 4k content before you invest in a 4k tv. Unless you get an expensive 4k tv with a good upscaler and then sit really close to it, so you can see the difference in picture quality. I already did this same dance last decade when hd came out and the picture looked like crap on most sd channels ,which were the norm back then. I'll wait on 4k till there is actual 4k out there to watch over satellite or ota if ever.

You're not wrong, BUT you can get a better picture that is not JUST the resolution being better. It really depends on your current TV, and the TV you buy. The modern image processor, and better panel (colors, viewing angels, etc,) will make a better picture.

More pixels will not make the image worse though as you are just splitting a single 1080 pixel in to 4 (2x2) 4k pixels. This is where the "scaling" image processor COULD help... try to take those pixels, and the pixels next to it on the next frames etc. etc. etc.....

I my self am skeptical of this being a noticeable. Blood from a turnip.

 

[BBruin66]

Im sitting 9 feet away so I guess 1080P should be fine. As I understand it, unless you are 2-3 feet away, the naked eye cant see the difference and since I wear glasses, probably so.

From 9 feet you would need a 70" TV to BEGIN to see UHD/4k (still not full detail)

Keep in mind that the Samsung SUHD TV with 4k you are looking at will have HDR which will be noticeably better at any distance because it is better/more color (on the content that will have it). Many have predicted HDR will actually be the next seller in TVs because you can easily notice it on a showroom floor, and you don't need good/great vision to be able to notice it. This is another thing all new TVs will have soon, because it's not THAT expensive and there's no real reason to disclude it.

 

[Tampa8]

And many of the 4K TV's now do not have HDR yet.

 

[DishSubLA]

HDCP 2.2! A 4K Killer. That is a pain if one has equipment (4K) not HDCP2.02compliant anywhere in your chain: HDCP2.2

 

[ewindowman]

I would not worry about 4K ,most of the hd I see from dish is 720 at best let alone 1080 ,when they do transmit at what they call 4K it will be a lighter version and call it 2k the next best thing

 

[gadgtfreek]

From 9 feet you would need a 70" TV to BEGIN to see UHD/4k (still not full detail)

Keep in mind that the Samsung SUHD TV with 4k you are looking at will have HDR which will be noticeably better at any distance because it is better/more color (on the content that will have it). Many have predicted HDR will actually be the next seller in TVs because you can easily notice it on a showroom floor, and you don't need good/great vision to be able to notice it. This is another thing all new TVs will have soon, because it's not THAT expensive and there's no real reason to disclude it.

I am going to disagree with part of this one. The view charts were thrown out there as fact when 1080p came along to justify not buying them. Even at longer view distances it was proven the 1080p content looked better overall than 720p displays. I spent a lot of time watching the 2160p/1080p demo's, and even standing way back the difference in clarity is obvious to justify UHD for me.

I do agree 100% with you on the expanded color gamut and HDR being worthy no matter how far you are away.

This is all 100% blu-ray for me though, I highly doubt UHD on Satellite will be worth it, but I hope they prove me wrong.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I would not worry about 4K ,most of the hd I see from dish is 720 at best let alone 1080 ,when they do transmit at what they call 4K it will be a lighter version and call it 2k the next best thing

You mean "4k lite".

 

[Tampa8]

I am going to disagree with part of this one. The view charts were thrown out there as fact when 1080p came along to justify not buying them. Even at longer view distances it was proven the 1080p content looked better overall than 720p displays. .

You are going to have to provide some proof of that. The Lechner Distance as the formal name is was a scientific study and endeavor, not something made up. It's been a study at some Universities and I have never seen something to disprove it. But I can't read everything so I am open to scientific studies that disprove it. By the way, the Snellen chart, long before the consideration of HD also plays a role into what the human eye can see at what distance.

While the distance to screen size is not exact, it is very close to that. If the discussion was OLED as an example, that is very different and can be seen next to an older technology TV. Even LED dimming done correctly can make a picture look better at longer distances.(Deeper looking blacks and better shadows) Technology can make a new TV look better even at distances than an older one, but not resolution. On larger screen sizes sitting the correct distance 720P can look softer than 1080P, but get outside the sitting range and there is no difference.