# Vizio P Series 4K TV and the Roamio Pro



## m021478 (Nov 18, 2005)

I'm in the market for a new TV and I'm seriously considering picking up the VIZIO P602ui-B3 60-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED HDTV (what a mouthful!)... At $1,699 it's in my budget, and while there isn't a whole lot of 4K content available at this point, I plan to own this TV for at least the next 5 years and there will be more content as time goes by.

Obviously I won't be able to watch 4K TV by way of the Roamio on the Vizio until TiVo's coming line of Ultra HD/4K-capable set-top boxes become available, which could be a while...

*But one thing I'd appreciate all of your collective input on* is what I can expect in terms of quality when viewing regular 1080p/i HD programming via my Roamio Pro (along with my crappy Time Warner cable cards and tuning adapter)? To the best of my understanding, as things are right now I'm only able to view 1080i on my Sharp Aquos 60-Inch TV. How's that going to look on the Vizio? Will it even work properly? Will there be overscan fuzzy/static lines around the edges of the display? Will the Vizio attempt upscaling my measly 1080i video source into something it just ain't?

I guess the main thing I want to know is will I be able to watch Cable TV programming at the same _(*or better)_ quality than I am currently watching it, or will it somehow be worse/problematic?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated... Thanks!


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

I work with 4K Tvs and monitors all the time. Hope you are able to sit pretty close to that TV for optimal viewing, which is between 4 and 6 feet from the screen, to take advantage of the 4K. If you are sitting at 7 feet or more from the TV, it is doubtful if you will see any difference between a 2K and 4K display.

http://www.rtings.com/info/television-size-to-distance-relationship

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ew-4k-tv-go-big-because-size-does-matter.html


----------



## m021478 (Nov 18, 2005)

Captainbob said:


> I work with 4K Tvs and monitors all the time. Hope you are able to sit pretty close to that TV for optimal viewing, which is between 4 and 6 feet from the screen, to take advantage of the 4K. If you are sitting at 7 feet or more from the TV, it is doubtful if you will see any difference between a 2K and 4K display.


I'm aware of this, and the truth is I'm not going to be sitting that close... But it still makes no sense to me whatsoever to buy a 1080p TV that I plan to keep for 5+ years, knowing that the market is moving towards 4K.

I don't want this thread to become a discussion about whether or not to buy a 4K TV... What I really need to know is if the Vizio P Series 4k TV I asked about will work as well or better with my Roamio Pro than my current 1080p TV.

Thanks!

_**though you may have persuaded me to suck it up and just deal with the 70" model instead _


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

m021478 said:


> I'm aware of this, and the truth is I'm not going to be sitting that close... But it still makes no sense to me whatsoever to buy a 1080p TV that I plan to keep for 5+ years, knowing that the market is moving towards 4K.
> 
> I don't want this thread to become a discussion about whether or not to buy a 4K TV... What I really need to know is if the Vizio P Series 4k TV I asked about will work as well or better with my Roamio Pro than my current 1080p TV.
> 
> ...


Just don't want you to be disappointed when at a normal viewing distance, it looks the same as a 1080p TV, either today, or 5 years from now. If you sit really close to it, around 4 feet, the 4K display will look better providing you have 4K content to feed it. I guess I don't understand what you mean by, " will it work any better". We have an 85" at work and with 4K content at a normal viewing distance ( around 8 feet) , it looks fantastic, but it is around $10,000.


----------



## m021478 (Nov 18, 2005)

Honestly, at normal viewing distance (7-8 feet), I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy a 720p TV set. Would you?

I don't really see why it's that tough of a question to understand... is 1080i upscaled to 4k going to look okay? *Even more importantly*, what happens when I flip to a channel being broadcast in SD... 480p upscaled to 4k!!! This is a real concern of mine! What's that going to look like?

I know video is a different beast, but I'm a photographer and I know what happens when you try to take a 4-megapixel image and upscale it to 20-megapixels let's just say it's not pretty.

I'm about to drop $2000 on a new TV set, and I thought it wise to gain a little clarity about some of my concerns by asking my peers for feedback.

Anyone?


----------



## gcw07 (Oct 30, 2007)

I think your best bet to finding answers might be to read the new owners thread over at AVS Forums.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...icial-2014-vizio-p-series-owner-s-thread.html

There is a lot of good information on that TV there and what to expect on different resolutions.


----------



## m021478 (Nov 18, 2005)

gcw07 said:


> I think your best bet to finding answers might be to read the new owners thread over at AVS Forums.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...icial-2014-vizio-p-series-owner-s-thread.html
> 
> There is a lot of good information on that TV there and what to expect on different resolutions.


Thanks for the link! I'll definitely check that out.

If by chance a fellow Roamio Pro/Vizio P Series owner on this forum stumbles across this thread, by all means, please weigh in with your experience! Thanks!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

m021478 said:


> Honestly, at normal viewing distance (7-8 feet), I can't really tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy a 720p TV set. Would you?
> 
> I don't really see why it's that tough of a question to understand... is 1080i upscaled to 4k going to look okay? *Even more importantly*, what happens when I flip to a channel being broadcast in SD... 480p upscaled to 4k!!! This is a real concern of mine! What's that going to look like?
> 
> ...


480P looks like crap on 720P and 1080P sets. So I would expect it to still look like crap on a 2160P set too. You can only do so much with a crappy 480P picture. Although, the farther you sit away from the screen, the better upscaled 480P content will look.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> 480P looks like crap on 720P and 1080P sets. So I would expect it to still look like crap on a 2160P set too. You can only do so much with a crappy 480P picture. Although, the farther you sit away from the screen, the better upscaled 480P content will look.


480p looked great on my Fujitsu P50 50" plasma 10-11 years ago (whoa, I can't believe it was that long ago). And it sucked on most "affordable" big-screen sets of the day. The scalar in use matters. A lot. Whether the cheap sets offer a scalar comparable 10 years later especially considering improvements in processing power/$, I can't say.

That's not to say I wouldn't prefer, even then, the source to be 720p, 1080i 1080p or higher. But 480p wasn't horrendous in itself compared to "cheaper" big-screen displays.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

it should be fine with the TiVo outputting 1080i or p, vizio will upscale it to 4k. I am guessing their upscaler is not the best but not the worst either. And like others mentioned, sitting 8 feet from it make it seem like a 1080p tv anyways. Not sure what the comparable 1080p vizio costs but I dont see the harm of spending a bit more for 4k.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

The question m021478 is asking is valid and important. 

All 4K will be up-scaling whatever signal they get (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p) to 4K resolution, how well they do that will determine how good non 4K content will look. 

Back when we where moving from SD to HD lots of TV reviews talked about how well the TVs up-scaled SD content and there were significant differences from TV to TV. The same is going to be true 4K TVs, given that most content isn't going to be 4K anytime soon how well a 4K TV up-scales SD & HD content maybe one of the most important important things to be looking for.

It is very possible (actually likely) that some better quality 1080p sets will have better looking pictures than some lower end 4K TVs. I would be waiting for reviews before buying one. On the up side Cnet has liked several of Vizio's 1080p sets this year so maybe this 4K set will be a good one.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> The question m021478 is asking is valid and important.
> 
> All 4K will be up-scaling whatever signal they get (480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p) to 4K resolution, how well they do that will determine how good non 4K content will look.
> 
> ...


Since Vizio is not one of the top 4K manufacturers, but a second tier, the scaler in their 4K sets is probably not as good as Samsung, or Panasonic for instance. That being said, the only concern would be scaling HD signals, and how well that is done, because SD content will look like crap, no matter how good the scaler is. Put lipstick on a pig, and it still looks like a pig. One thing to consider is that using the new 4K Blu Rays that may come out by next year, will require that they will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in all your devices for it to work. That means that anything the signal goes though has to be HDCP 2.2 , if not, it won't display the picture in 4K. That means that the TV, and audio receiver, and the Player, must have HDCP 2.2. The only component in the video chain that could still be used, would be the HDMI cable. Many tech people that I know, are waiting for the larger screen OLEDs to come out, before making a move towards 4K, thinking that by that time, everything will be HDCP 2.2 Compliant.
http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

Captainbob said:


> Since Vizio is not one of the top 4K manufacturers, but a second tier, the scaler in their 4K sets is probably not as good as Samsung, or Panasonic for instance. That being said, the only concern would be scaling HD signals, and how well that is done, because SD content will look like crap, no matter how good the scaler is. Put lipstick on a pig, and it still looks like a pig. One thing to consider is that using the new 4K Blu Rays that may come out by next year, will require that they will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in all your devices for it to work. That means that anything the signal goes though has to be HDCP 2.2 , if not, it won't display the picture in 4K. That means that the TV, and audio receiver, and the Player, must have HDCP 2.2. The only component in the video chain that could still be used, would be the HDMI cable. Many tech people that I know, are waiting for the larger screen OLEDs to come out, before making a move towards 4K, thinking that by that time, everything will be HDCP 2.2 Compliant.
> http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/


The vizio has one HDCP 2.2 hdmi 2.0 port


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

Jeff_DML said:


> The vizio has one HDCP 2.2 hdmi 2.0 port


As long as everything else in the chain is 2.2 compliant it will work. Point I was making is that if you already have an AV receiver, and any signal distribution device that is not 2.2 compliant, it won't work. Within a year or two, all devices will have that. In addition, the prices of 4K displays will probably drop like a rock, they already have in the last year.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Scaling either 1080 or 720 to 2160 (4K) should be easier than scaling 480 to 1080, since it's an integer multiple of those resolutions. Thus, hopefully, even a cheap scaler should do OK. (?)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

dswallow said:


> 480p looked great on my Fujitsu P50 50" plasma 10-11 years ago (whoa, I can't believe it was that long ago). And it sucked on most "affordable" big-screen sets of the day. The scalar in use matters. A lot. Whether the cheap sets offer a scalar comparable 10 years later especially considering improvements in processing power/$, I can't say.
> 
> That's not to say I wouldn't prefer, even then, the source to be 720p, 1080i 1080p or higher. But 480p wasn't horrendous in itself compared to "cheaper" big-screen displays.


Yes i've been using external scalers for the past tweleve years. To help improve things the best I could. While it made the SD content look much better than using the Tv or other devices internal scaler, it was still SD which lacks the detail that higher resolution has. And unfortunately there is no way around the lack of detail with low resolution content.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> Since Vizio is not one of the top 4K manufacturers, but a second tier, the scaler in their 4K sets is probably not as good as Samsung, or Panasonic for instance. That being said, the only concern would be scaling HD signals, and how well that is done, because SD content will look like crap, no matter how good the scaler is. Put lipstick on a pig, and it still looks like a pig. One thing to consider is that using the new 4K Blu Rays that may come out by next year, will require that they will be HDCP 2.2 compliant in all your devices for it to work. That means that anything the signal goes though has to be HDCP 2.2 , if not, it won't display the picture in 4K. That means that the TV, and audio receiver, and the Player, must have HDCP 2.2. The only component in the video chain that could still be used, would be the HDMI cable. Many tech people that I know, are waiting for the larger screen OLEDs to come out, before making a move towards 4K, thinking that by that time, everything will be HDCP 2.2 Compliant.
> http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/


That's why they will probably have players with two HDMI outputs. One with HDMi 2.2 to go straight to the display with HDMI 2.2. And another HDMI output to use for audio and other devices with earlier versions of HDMI.

Because if they don't offer that option a BD UHD format will be dead in the water. Since most people will not be upgrading every device at once in their chain to be HDMI 2.2 compliant.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

The upscaler is probably pretty darn good. I haven't seen any reviews, but I know that they designed custom silicon for this line, and the new TVs have WAY more horsepower than TVs just a couple of years ago, for smart apps, upscaling, everything.

Whether they can do as well as Samsung has done remains to be seen. The only external 4K processors that I know of cost more than the 70" P series, so those aren't a realistic option at the moment...


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> Scaling either 1080 or 720 to 2160 (4K) should be easier than scaling 480 to 1080, since it's an integer multiple of those resolutions. Thus, hopefully, even a cheap scaler should do OK. (?)


While I think how well a 4K TV up-scales 720/1080 broadcasts is going to be important, it is also important to remember that just because the TV is 4k that doesn't mean it is going to have a good picture even with native 4K content.

For the major brands that are releasing super high end 4K TVs the picture should be the best in their line ups but as more cheaper/less costly 4K TVs are released some will have mediocre pictures. Just like there are 1080p TVs with mediocre pictures.

At the size we are talking about (60inches) the extra resolution isn't going to matter much in many (most?) viewing environments, so I would want to know the Vizio 4K TV had at least as good a picture as similarly or lower priced 1080p 60 inch sets. Paying more for a poorer picture, 4K or not doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

atmuscarella said:


> While I think how well a 4K TV up-scales 720/1080 broadcasts is going to be important, it is also important to remember that just because the TV is 4k that doesn't mean it is going to have a good picture even with native 4K content.
> 
> For the major brands that are releasing super high end 4K TVs the picture should be the best in their line ups but as more cheaper/less costly 4K TVs are released some will have mediocre pictures. Just like there are 1080p TVs with mediocre pictures.
> 
> At the size we are talking about (60inches) the extra resolution isn't going to matter much in many (most?) viewing environments, so I would want to know the Vizio 4K TV had at least as good a picture as similarly or lower priced 1080p 60 inch sets. Paying more for a poorer picture, 4K or not doesn't make sense to me.


something like this










it is only $284 OTD so what can you expect


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

aaronwt said:


> Yes i've been using external scalers for the past tweleve years.


The HD & Home Theater podcast covered scalers in the past couple of episodes. Basically, my summary of what they said is -- nowadays they're VERY expensive for what you get, and likely the built in scalers in any TV are as good as at least the _old_ external scalers.. (I have no idea how often you've upgraded them.)


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

mattack said:


> The HD & Home Theater podcast covered scalers in the past couple of episodes. Basically, my summary of what they said is -- nowadays they're VERY expensive for what you get, and likely the built in scalers in any TV are as good as at least the _old_ external scalers.. (I have no idea how often you've upgraded them.)


??? Scalers are less expensive nowadays and offer more than ever before. And do a better job than ever. In the past I typically upgraded my scalers around every year. But currently I've been using my DVDO DUO for several years, since it launched. WHich is the longest I've ever used any scaler. Prior to that I always upgraded every time a new model came out. And several of the current scalers can do an auto calibration which helps make things much easier. That was not the case many years ago. But this is one of the features I take advantage of on my Duo. It is long in the tooth now. But I'm not sure when I will upgrade it again since the DUo combined with a Darbee Darblet produces great results.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Scaling either 1080 or 720 to 2160 (4K) should be easier than scaling 480 to 1080, since it's an integer multiple of those resolutions. Thus, hopefully, even a cheap scaler should do OK. (?)


This.

Unlike the up (or down) scaling of 1080 vs. 720 resolutions, going from 1080 to UHD (aka 4K) is a simple matter illuminating 4 physical pixels for each data pixel. You would have to try hard to design a scaler that couldn't do that well. Of course, you still have non-integer scaling of 720p content, and SD resolutions will look as bad as they do on a 1080p set, but 1080i/p content should be fine.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I'm not sure I'd characterize a scalar that's just creating 4 pixels from 1 pixel as meeting the definition of what I'd expect any sort of advanced scalar to do. An advanced scalar is going to interpolate some additional information, either from prior frame(s) and/or surrounding pixels to determine an appropriate level for each of the 4 pixels.

But yes, at that most basic level it should, at least, be difficult to screw up providing basic support for at least a lower resolution that is an integer multiple of a 4K/UHD display.

What'll happen though is that there'll be some hardware implementing some sort of more advanced scaling as I characterized above, and doing a piss-poor job of it, creating objectionable artifacts, and not providing a means to change the scaling methodology to something without the artifacts, in those particular cases.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> Of course, you still have non-integer scaling of 720p content


No -- 4K is 3x the resolution of 720p, in each direction (so, a nine-pixel block instead of a four-pixel block).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dswallow said:


> I'm not sure I'd characterize a scalar that's just creating 4 pixels from 1 pixel as meeting the definition of what I'd expect any sort of advanced scalar to do. An advanced scalar is going to interpolate some additional information, either from prior frame(s) and/or surrounding pixels to determine an appropriate level for each of the 4 pixels.
> 
> But yes, at that most basic level it should, at least, be difficult to screw up providing basic support for at least a lower resolution that is an integer multiple of a 4K/UHD display.
> 
> What'll happen though is that there'll be some hardware implementing some sort of more advanced scaling as I characterized above, and doing a piss-poor job of it, creating objectionable artifacts, and not providing a means to change the scaling methodology to something without the artifacts, in those particular cases.


Yeah, you can't just quadruple the pixels, as it would look really ugly. You have to do some interpolation and other processing work on those pixels to at least smooth things out and make them visually pleasing.

The upside is that 720p should look way better at 2160p than at 1080p.

I've heard good things about Samsung's scaling, as there is a LOT of powerful silicon behind it in the 4K TVs. Hopefully Vizio's custom designed silicon is just as good.

But ultimately, this is nothing new. 1080p TVs have to process various resolutions to make them fit, now there's just that many more pixels to wrangle with, but also exponentially more CPU power than was available in TVs just a few years ago.


----------

