Where is the 1080p Setting under HDTV Setup?

[8bitbytes]

TV's never do as good a job as the receiver at conversion.

False: The Dish Network receiver uses a broadcom chipset for all of its HD processing.

Many tvs and projectors use a Faroudja, Pixelworks, or HQV video processing chipset to name a few and do a much better job of scaling a video signal than any Dish receiver could hope to.

1080i is still 1080 and has more REAL pixels of content than 720p.

If your display looks better with 720p, go for it.

My 8 foot screen looks better with my Dish receiver set to 1080i.

 

[BuddyBoy]

I have an R5000, so I know exactly what format each HD channel on Dish is transmitting. The CNet list was mostly correct. There is one more station, I think a CBS college sports station or something like that which is transmitting in 720p. And National Geographic I thought was 1080i, though to be sure I'd have to check it.

1080i is absolutely the best format for the receiver's output if tuned to a 1080i station. That's the only way you're going to get a 120Hz 1080p set to natively display 1080p24 content when tuned to a 1080i channel. With 720p you'd be throwing 1/3rd the resolution in each dimension (over half the pixels), for no gain in temporal resolution (remember I said when viewing 24fps content).

I haven't noticed any degradation when outputting 720p content at 1080i on my 622 (Lost looks pretty good for example, though like most scripted TV it was mastered at 1080p24, so if ABC broadcast 1080i it would be better for viewers), but D* subscribers have told me the difference is easily noticeable on the D* receivers - which is why native output is so important to them.

 

[Poke]

Yeah right now most Networks don't even do 1080i most are still at 720p.. I think in the future more will try to get to 1080p or even 1080i. Right now Blu-Ray only thing that does 1080p..

 

[Smith P.]

Yeah right now most Networks don't even do 1080i most are still at 720p.. ...

Poke, any chance to see your source. Doesn't look right.

 

[BuddyBoy]

Yeah right now most Networks don't even do 1080i most are still at 720p.. I think in the future more will try to get to 1080p or even 1080i. Right now Blu-Ray only thing that does 1080p..

Sorry, but WTF? You're seriously confused.

All, or almost all CBS and NBC stations broadcast 1080i. And 1080p24 is fully recoverable when packaged inside a 1080i broadcast by a decent deinterlacer. If you don't understand this (reverse 3:2 pulldown, inverse telecine, whatever term you want to use), you shouldn't be participating in this thread. So tens of thousands, if not more people are already receiving 1080p content and natively displaying it on their TVs, despite the fact that the format they receive is 1080i.

I've taken 1080i captures of known 1080p content from my R5000-equipped 211, decoded and displayed the individual odd and even fields with AviSynth+VirtualDub, and seen the 3:2 cadence, and then reassembled and decimated the frames to recover 24fps progressive frames. So I know what is in the signal being broadcast. This is the same thing my TV's deinterlacer does in real-time.

 

[toto]

The formats for HD are 1920x1080i 60 fields per second, 1920x1080p 30 frames per second, and 1920x1080p at 24 frames per second (film based). the 720p format is 1280x720p in 60,30, or 24 frames per second. ABC, Fox, ESPN and some PBS are 720p, pretty much everything else is 1080i that is broadcast. What is available in 1080p is BluRay and some VOD. 1080p TVs prior to last year would convert a progressive signal to interlace and reconvert back to the display's 1080p. Most current and many of last years accept 1080p signals without rescaling. Fox has announced an intent to move to 1080p at some point in the future.

 

[toto]

There have been 1080p televisions out for some time now. Why don't the receivers have a 1080p setting for TV type under the HDTV setup?

Since they don't have such a choice, which is the better one to use if you have a 1080p tv, 720p or 1080i? Does it make a difference?

I think most 1080p offerings test your TV to see if it will work. As to where too set your set at 720p or 1080i, try both too see which one your display responds to best from your carrier.

 

[jayn_j]

This thread has morphed into a religious issue.

As already mentioned, 1080i is better in terms of absolute resolution.

1080i = 1080*1920 = 2,073,600 pixels each 1/30 sec.
720p = 720*1280 = 921,600 pixels each 1/60 sec.

If a still picture is shown, then 1080i is clearly sharper. However, if there is heavy motion, the 1080i picture will show motion artifacts. In extreme cases, you could effectively half the 1080i resolution to 1,036,800. Still hiogher, but the motion effect is noticable and will hurt perceived resolution.

I think that blind tests would show that the difference in thoeretical resolution would be lost by a bunch of real life factors.

First, all providers are compressing the datastream to various degrees that hurts 1080i actual resolution more than for 720P.

Second, the native resolution of the TV will have a big effect. 720P will look better on a 720P set and 1080i will look better on a 1080i/p set.

Then there is the quality of the conversion algorithms, de-interlacers, etc.

Bottom line is that this is kind of a stupid argument, especially since there isn't much we can do to affect or improve what we get.

 

[primetimeguy]

LOL

?

 

[8bitbytes]

... 720P will look better on a 720P set and 1080i will look better on a 1080i/p set....

Bottom line is that this is kind of a stupid argument, especially since there isn't much we can do to affect or improve what we get.

You would think so wouldn't you!

The only stupid part imo is where the 720p is advocated as a higher HD resolution than 1080i.

However, pixel worship is not an officially recognized religion yet!

 

[BuddyBoy]

If a still picture is shown, then 1080i is clearly sharper. However, if there is heavy motion, the 1080i picture will show motion artifacts. In extreme cases, you could effectively half the 1080i resolution to 1,036,800. Still hiogher, but the motion effect is noticable and will hurt perceived resolution.

You need to make the distinction between 1080i broadcasts that are actually 1080i60 content, and 1080i broadcasts that are actually 1080p24 content. Except for the news, the content I watch on channels broadcasting 1080i (not counting sports and Survivor) is actually 1080p24. So everything you wrote about 1080i broadcasts does not apply to scripted prime-time shows, as they are mastered at 1080p24, and what is actually broadcast are not 60Hz interlaced fields, but odd and even scanlines from a 24Hz progressive source. What you wrote applies to true 1080i sources like NFL or Survivor on CBS, but not say, CSI Miami on CBS.

 

[toto]

You need to make the distinction between 1080i broadcasts that are actually 1080i60 content, and 1080i broadcasts that are actually 1080p24 content. Except for the news, the content I watch on channels broadcasting 1080i (not counting sports and Survivor) is actually 1080p24. So everything you wrote about 1080i broadcasts does not apply to scripted prime-time shows, as they are mastered at 1080p24, and what is actually broadcast are not 60Hz interlaced fields, but odd and even scanlines from a 24Hz progressive source. What you wrote applies to true 1080i sources like NFL or Survivor on CBS, but not say, CSI Miami on CBS.

That's interesting, I thought that most episodic tv, even today, was shot on film and then remastered to digital, archiving the film to later convert to the next great thing to come along.

 

[toto]

Of course, living in the city that essentially gave birth to digital cinema, I missplaced 1080p/24
in the deep recesses (or is it vacancies) of my brain. I went back and read a brief articl and found something interestin about 24p digital.
"With the low 24 fps frame rate, 1080p/24 would not be suited for fast action sports photography. For features, you will still have to follow the panning speed tables of 24 fps film so as not to induce large amounts of judder on the big screen. But the 1080p/24 system has no new visible artifacts when compared to 35mm theatrical film and eliminates many of the problems associated with film. At the 24 fps frame rate, the 1080p/24 HDTV system takes on the "veil of separation" that film has. This is appealing to feature film cinematographers who rely on that veil to suspend belief. At higher frame rates, the viewer experiences a telepresence that would trash the mood 24 fps film provides, a primary blow against 30 frame/60 field television acquisition"

 

[primetimeguy]

No, please review Don Landis' eloquent post again until it's clear.

I see nothing wrong with the math. Care to enlighten us?

Not saying it is entirely because of resolution/format, but have you ever compared FOX, ABC or ESPN to CBS or NBC for NFL games?

 

[Ronnie-]

No, please review Don Landis' eloquent post again until it's clear.



No.

You need to do more research quantum. Or give sources for what you think is correct. Simple yes and no answers dont prove anything in this discussion.

 

[Ronnie-]

I see nothing wrong with the math. Care to enlighten us?

Not saying it is entirely because of resolution/format, but have you ever compared FOX, ABC or ESPN to CBS or NBC for NFL games?

The math is correct, however what looks better is VERY subjective. Too many factors between peoples sets and homes to say that one looks better than ther other in EVERY situation. What is better for one set of circumstances may very well be worse for another

 

[primetimeguy]

The math is correct, however what looks better is VERY subjective. Too many factors between peoples sets and homes to say that one looks better than ther other in EVERY situation. What is better for one set of circumstances may very well be worse for another

Agreed.

 

[Ronnie-]

You expect me to help you hostile ones? Really?! You think that an adversarial attitude will pry the information you want to learn?

No sir.

And I'm not going to explain myself under these circumstances.

I've said enough that the ones I care about have the idea. The ones with adequate experience, know.

I simply asked if YOU had any sources. After you asked other posters for them, I think that is only fair. Is it not? I dont see how thats hostile at all
If you cant or wont provide them that is fine, just dont act like other posters are ignorant because they dont agree with YOUR point of view.

 

[BuddyBoy]

That's interesting, I thought that most episodic tv, even today, was shot on film and then remastered to digital, archiving the film to later convert to the next great thing to come along.

I'm not sure what part you wrote that is different than what I wrote. Shot on film at 24fps, digitally mastered as 1080p24.

 

[jayn_j]

You expect me to help you hostile ones? Really?! You think that an adversarial attitude will pry the information you want to learn?

No sir.

And I am not going to explain myself under these circumstances.

I've said enough that the ones I care about have the idea. And the ones with adequate experience, know.

IMHO, you came in here with the attitude. It's a good discussion, but I don't see where you have contributed. You HAVE proven that you are stubborn, but looking back, I don't see any post where you have said anything that defends your opinion, except to say that "anonymous sources" (your daddy perhaps?) say it is so.

BTW, there is a difference between disagreeing with yiour opinion and being hostile. Very few hostile posts, but a number of people think you are misinformed.