# 4k Tv



## johnmz

Has anyone tried using a Tivo Mini with a 4K TV?


----------



## dianebrat

What are you expecting? 
It'll work like any other HDMI device..


----------



## wmcbrine

TiVo has yet to make a unit that can handle or output 4k, but it will drive the monitor at 1080i/p.


----------



## bradleys

What would the source for the 4K signal be?


----------



## dianebrat

bradleys said:


> What would the source for the 4K signal be?


magic


----------



## tarheelblue32

bradleys said:


> What would the source for the 4K signal be?


Netflix.


----------



## dianebrat

bradleys said:


> What would the source for the 4K signal be?





tarheelblue32 said:


> Netflix.


But the mini hooked to the 4K television would not be able to utilize that.

I predict it's a "1 and done" from the OP


----------



## bradleys

Well then he must have one of those 2014 70" + ultra TV's and it will have an ultra HD Netflix client installed. I can't watch 1080p on my old tube television no matter what the source is...

This is the biggest bullsh*t questions we get, if he had the $5,000 TV required to display 4k, he would know the answer to his question.

4k is a gimmick.


----------



## wmcbrine

I think 4K is likely to be the new mainstream, sooner than later. The sets aren't even that pricey.

I have one (1) 2160p video file that I tried feeding to my TiVos. IIRC, it played back audio-only... what I know for sure is, it didn't work.


----------



## tarheelblue32

bradleys said:


> 4k is a gimmick.


People probably said the same thing about color back in the 60s or HD in the 90s. I can hear them now: "I prefer TV in black and white, color is too distracting." or "Standard definition looks good enough to me, and I don't like the new widescreen format."


----------



## bradleys

The median size of TV's sold in the US is 46", and has been stable at that number since 2007... 4k brings no value at that size, heck you really need to get up to 70" before you can see a demonstrable difference at normal viewing distances.

So then it comes to content - 1080P was successful because cable TV delivered it to the unwashed masses and even a bargain basement 30" television improved...

So, only 2% of television sales are that large and we have no content - one has to drive the other and in this case neither can drive the change.

Just like 3D, this is a gimmick, the CE manufacturers are hoping to catch the sales magic of the HD revolution - but this won't go anywhere.

Just like the emperors cloths - lemmings will claim they can see the difference on their 40" plasma, swearing up and down... But you can't, 20/20 vision cannot consume the difference in pixels at anything that could be considered a normal viewing distance. Done, end of story, hard stop.

Good article from Cnet on this topic:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/


----------



## HomieG

bradleys,

Great summary at the cnet link you provided. Marketing is powerful, and the manufacturers play on bigger numbers for the finite time they'll be able to sell 4K TV's at high prices. Though the prices will inevitably decrease, and I do think 4K TV's will be slightly more successful than 3D was.


----------



## swerver

Have they stopped selling 3d? I bought my last tv in 2010 and 3d was still 50% pricier at the time, and I wasn't interested anyway, so I didn't spring for it. Since then prices have continued to drop, I figured just about all big tv's these days just had 3d by default. And that 4k would be the same way. It just becomes standard once the price drops enough, even if no one really wanted it. 

Having said all that, 4k does look amazing and I personally find it more compelling than 3d, but I would only be interested in the case of a theater type application. Of course this won't stop manufacturers from trying to push it on regular sized tv's.


----------



## wmcbrine

Not many people will base their TV buying decisions on a chart. Here's how it works: You go to the store, you stand right in front of the TV, you go "Wow!", and you buy it. 3D was never all that "wow", and the glasses kill it. 4K needs no glasses.

Content-wise, here's what 4K can do today: render both 1080i/p (at 2x) and 720p (at 3x) without compromising or favoring either one. It's the lowest resolution that can do that. Reason enough, given the lack of premium pricing, for it to supplant 720p and 1080p displays.


----------



## bradleys

My next media room projector will be a 4k projector, I think it makes sense.

So far at least, BDA (blue-ray standards body) has not developed a 4k standard and nothing seems to be in the works at the moment. So physical media isn't on the horizon - only streaming...


----------



## aaronwt

bradleys said:


> The median size of TV's sold in the US is 46", and has been stable at that number since 2007... 4k brings no value at that size, heck you really need to get up to 70" before you can see a demonstrable difference at normal viewing distances.
> 
> So then it comes to content - 1080P was successful because cable TV delivered it to the unwashed masses and even a bargain basement 30" television improved...
> 
> S..........................


WHen did cable TV bring 1080P? It's still 720P and 1080i with few exceptions.


----------



## bradleys

Yes, but the unwashed masses don't know the difference!


----------



## series5orpremier

Just sit with your nose touching the screen and you'll be good. But first wait 10 years for the TV infrastructure to be replaced with 4K compatibility.


----------



## Bigg

bradleys said:


> My next media room projector will be a 4k projector, I think it makes sense.
> 
> So far at least, BDA (blue-ray standards body) has not developed a 4k standard and nothing seems to be in the works at the moment. So physical media isn't on the horizon - only streaming...


Exactly. 4K needs projectors to really shine. There's one Sony that can be paired with their media box to do 4K Netflix, but it's like $20k. I'm hoping that within a year or two, there are $4k 4k projectors that have a HEVC decoder and an Ethernet jack built in to be able to do Netflix, or somehow have an external box that can do that task. That would make for an amazing home theater to have a 120"+ 4k screen!


----------



## CodeeCB

bradleys said:


> Well then he must have one of those 2014 70" + ultra TV's and it will have an ultra HD Netflix client installed. I can't watch 1080p on my old tube television no matter what the source is...
> 
> This is the biggest bullsh*t questions we get, if he had the $5,000 TV required to display 4k, he would know the answer to his question.
> 
> 4k is a gimmick.


How is 4K a gimmick? I have a samsung 4k and it is absolutely amazing compared to my previous tv (Panasonic plasma). Netflix in 4k is good, the 4k content pack/hard drive is awesome, and standard bluray and tv looks better even.

Prices keep coming down to and will be mainstream faster than 3d ever was or will be.


----------



## CodeeCB

bradleys said:


> The median size of TV's sold in the US is 46", and has been stable at that number since 2007... 4k brings no value at that size, heck you really need to get up to 70" before you can see a demonstrable difference at normal viewing distances.
> 
> So then it comes to content - 1080P was successful because cable TV delivered it to the unwashed masses and even a bargain basement 30" television improved...
> 
> So, only 2% of television sales are that large and we have no content - one has to drive the other and in this case neither can drive the change.
> 
> Just like 3D, this is a gimmick, the CE manufacturers are hoping to catch the sales magic of the HD revolution - but this won't go anywhere.
> 
> Just like the emperors cloths - lemmings will claim they can see the difference on their 40" plasma, swearing up and down... But you can't, 20/20 vision cannot consume the difference in pixels at anything that could be considered a normal viewing distance. Done, end of story, hard stop.
> 
> Good article from Cnet on this topic:
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/


I have a 65" 4k and sit around 5' from it, if that so I am getting the full benefits of 4k content


----------



## tarheelblue32

CodeeCB said:


> How is 4K a gimmick? I have a samsung 4k and it is absolutely amazing compared to my previous tv (Panasonic plasma). Netflix in 4k is good, the 4k content pack/hard drive is awesome, and standard bluray and tv looks better even.
> 
> Prices keep coming down to and will be mainstream faster than 3d ever was or will be.


I doubt the people who call it a gimmick have ever seen a 4k TV in person. They never relate their first-hand experiences, they just trot out charts and say "Look, your eyes can't see a difference at X distance/screen size because this chart says so. It's a gimmick!" Then, people who actually have seen 4k in person say that it looks amazing compared to standard HD. I have to admit I have not yet seen 4k in person myself, but until I do, I am inclined to believe people who have actually seen one over some chart. And once I take a look at one myself, I will believe my own eyes over some chart.


----------



## aaronwt

You need to see an Ultra HDTV in person along with native UHD content. Without that it is underwhelming.


----------



## dianebrat

dianebrat said:


> I predict it's a "1 and done" from the OP


As predicted, OP has apparently moved on and not returned.


----------



## JWhites

Well all I know is that according to TiVo tech support the Premiere and Roamio and the Mini are all HDMI 1.4a compliant.:up:


----------



## aaronwt

JWhites said:


> Well all I know is that according to TiVo tech support the Premiere and Roamio and the Mini are all HDMI 1.4a compliant.:up:


Meaning what? Any 4K Tv(or UHD TV) should upconvert any input to it's native UHD resolution of 3840 x 2160.


----------



## JWhites

Nope. Just that if an update ever came out for 4K support, the HDMI component will support it.:up:


----------



## aaronwt

AFAIK the Roamio chipset doesn't support resolutions above 1080P.

I know Broadcom came out with a new SoC for UHD support, the BCM7445. But the Roamio is supposed to have the BCM7241.


----------



## JWhites

Oh ok then.  Would be interesting if they release revisions to the Roamio which brings that new chipset to the table. Or maybe TiVo releases a new Mini that can upconvert to UHD?


----------



## Dan203

Resolution is only a small part of the equation. Right now 4K TVs are high end, and manufacturers are trying to get people to buy them, so they are using the highest quality parts and techniques to make them look as good as possible. So there is no doubt they look amazing compared to the $500 HDTVs sitting next to them. Once they go mainstream and start to use lower quality components like most HDTVs do we'll be able to see that resolution doesn't really matter much. Unless you're sitting really close to your TV it's unlikely you'd be able to see a difference. At normal viewing distances (8-10') most people can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Those of you with 4k TVs that say they look better even when displaying 1080p content are just proving my point. 4k is exactly 4x the resolution of 1080p. So when a 4k panel displays a 1080p image it just uses 4 pixels to display every 1 pixel of the source, so the individual pixels are actually roughly the same size as they would be on a 1080p panel. The reason they look so much better is because the 4k TV is using better components, not because of the resolution.


----------



## Bigg

4K TVs also have scalers that up-scale, so they may actually look better than an equivalent 1080p TV, although using high quality components certainly does help. Those same upscalers make an upscaling TiVo a stupid device. TiVo users with 4k TVs are already using the TV's built-in upscaler, no need for another one, unless it is better than the one in the TV, which isn't going to be in a TiVo. That's something like a Lumagen Radiance.


----------



## Dan203

The cool thing about 4k is that upscaling is no longer necessary. The resolution is exactly 2x 1080p and 3x 720p. So for 1080 they just use a 2x2 grid of pixels for each source pixel and for 720 they use a 3x3 grid. No upscalling necessary. They do need to use a true scaler for SD, but who's going to watch SD on a 4k TV and expect any sort of quality?

4k is to resolution what 120Hz was to frame rate. They no longer need to use tricks to make it look good, it's just an even increment of the TVs native resolution.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> The cool thing about 4k is that upscaling is no longer necessary. The resolution is exactly 2x 1080p and 3x 720p. So for 1080 they just use a 2x2 grid of pixels for each source pixel and for 720 they use a 3x3 grid. No upscalling necessary. They do need to use a true scaler for SD, but who's going to watch SD on a 4k TV and expect any sort of quality?
> 
> 4k is to resolution what 120Hz was to frame rate. They no longer need to use tricks to make it look good, it's just an even increment of the TVs native resolution.


True, but you can do a lot better than pixel doubling, and they do. The good 4K TVs have a LOT of processing horsepower to make non-4K video look good.


----------



## Dan203

How can they do better then pixel doubling? When the target resolution is a direct multiple of the source pixel doubling is the cleanest option. This is why when Apple released the iPad with retina display they made the resolution exactly double the previous generation. Pixel doubling is always cleaner then any sort of interpolation. 

And since the size of the TVs are the same as 1080p equivalents using simple pixel doubling would give you the same quality as you'd see on a standard 1080p screen when viewing 1080p content. And better quality 720p content as there is no interpolation.

Seems like any processing they could do to hide the pixels would blur the picture and make it look softer.


----------



## CodeeCB

Dan203 said:


> How can they do better then pixel doubling? When the target resolution is a direct multiple of the source pixel doubling is the cleanest option. This is why when Apple released the iPad with retina display they made the resolution exactly double the previous generation. Pixel doubling is always cleaner then any sort of interpolation.
> 
> And since the size of the TVs are the same as 1080p equivalents using simple pixel doubling would give you the same quality as you'd see on a standard 1080p screen when viewing 1080p content. And better quality 720p content as there is no interpolation.
> 
> Seems like any processing they could do to hide the pixels would blur the picture and make it look softer.


I can't speak to the "how" it can look better then pixel doubling but for example I purchased a Samsung 4k TV at the end of 2013 and then purchased the 2014 evolution kit for the TV and it had a very noticeable and dramatic improvement on the picture quality for anything that wasn't 4k to begin with. The 2014 kit had a newer processor, scaler and software so in my mind, just pixel doubling wouldn't have had any picture improvement from 2014 kit if there wasn't more involved. Again.. Don't know the why's but I know the outcome


----------



## aaronwt

Just adding a Dabee Darblet to the process improves the picture quality.


----------



## Dan203

Hmmm... I guess with video you could probably get away with a bit of blurring and make the perceived quality look a bit better. But I bet if you had something with hard lines, like the old sharpness test pattern, it would look blurry. Might also be noticeable with some news programs that use hard edge graphics and text.


----------



## Dan203

aaronwt said:


> Just adding a Dabee Darblet to the process improves the picture quality.


That's playing more with contrast and black level. It's not changing the resolution.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> How can they do better then pixel doubling?


Interpolation. Video processing. These TVs have a LOT of computing horsepower in them. Having an integer ratio for existing source helps a lot, but they are doing WAY more than pixel doubling/tripling.


----------



## HarperVision

CodeeCB said:


> I can't speak to the "how" it can look better then pixel doubling but for example I purchased a Samsung 4k TV at the end of 2013 and then purchased the 2014 evolution kit for the TV and it had a very noticeable and dramatic improvement on the picture quality for anything that wasn't 4k to begin with. The 2014 kit had a newer processor, scaler and software so in my mind, just pixel doubling wouldn't have had any picture improvement from 2014 kit if there wasn't more involved. Again.. Don't know the why's but I know the outcome


Motion in the image, frame rates, panning, edge transitions, etc are just a few of the things that have to also be taken into account besides just pixels/resolution.


----------



## Dan203

But again these are all just tricks of the image processor, you can get the same thing from a high end HDTV without the added resolution. The resolution only matters if you're sitting close enough to the TV to see the pixels.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> But again these are all just tricks of the image processor, you can get the same thing from a high end HDTV without the added resolution. The resolution only matters if you're sitting close enough to the TV to see the pixels.


Upscaling, if done reasonably well, will look better than the native resolution of the source, but it will never look as good as the native resolution of the display...


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> Upscaling, *if done reasonably well*, will look better than the native resolution of the source, but it will never look as good as the native resolution of the display...


There's the catch. As 4K TVs get cheaper they're going to start using cheaper parts and the upscaling circuitry will take a hit. At that point the advantages to 4k will go away except when playing 4K content, which doesn't really exist at the moment. (I know there are a handful of 4k titles on Netflix and some test videos, but that's it)


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> There's the catch. As 4K TVs get cheaper they're going to start using cheaper parts and the upscaling circuitry will take a hit. At that point the advantages to 4k will go away except when playing 4K content, which doesn't really exist at the moment. (I know there are a handful of 4k titles on Netflix and some test videos, but that's it)


Yes, that happened with 1080p TVs as well in terms of scaling 720p and de-inlacing 1080i. But the good ones will just get better in terms of the circuitry and processing power that they have... Also, the good chips will get cheaper, so even the lower end ones will have more processing power...


----------



## ac3243

The real problem with 4k is sources. Look how long it's taken content providers to upgrade to HD(720/1080). Even after the Government delayed it 10 years. Netflix and other digital content providers have a chance to really erode the older providers if they can build up content fast enough to keep 4k TV owners interested. If content fails to keep pace, there will be long delay before 4k becomes mainstream.


----------



## slowbiscuit

You can forget it coming to broadcast TV anytime soon, this is being targeted at streaming services. Almost all of what I watch is being broadcast so I have no need to go 4k anytime soon.


----------



## bradleys

ac3243 said:


> The real problem with 4k is sources. Look how long it's taken content providers to upgrade to HD(720/1080). Even after the Government delayed it 10 years. Netflix and other digital content providers have a chance to really erode the older providers if they can build up content fast enough to keep 4k TV owners interested. If content fails to keep pace, there will be long delay before 4k becomes mainstream.


4K, for the most part, is a marketing scam. It will not drive consumer device sales in the way HD TV's did.

High end TV's will always look better than budget TV's - 4K has nothing to do with it.

Streaming sources and CE device manufacturers will continue to try to drum up excitement for the technology to drive sales and subscriptions. And the lemmings will follow.


----------



## tarheelblue32

bradleys said:


> 4K, for the most part, is a marketing scam.


You can say you don't think most people will be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k, but that doesn't make 4k a marketing scam. Marketing scams are where companies slap some superficial label on basically the same product it has been selling to hype sales. 4k is not that. There is real substance behind it. Manufacturing displays with 4x the number of pixels is neither cheap nor easy, and resolution is, in fact, improved with a greater number of pixels. Now, whether or not your eye can discern that it is better is an open question, but that does not make it a marketing scam. Just because my ass can't discern the difference between 300 thread count sheets and 600 thread count sheets does not make it a marketing scam.


----------



## bradleys

The scam is making a TV that will likely have little content for the foreseeable future. Broadcast TV / Cable TV cannot distribute content via 4k - technically it isn't feasible without the development of new technologies and significant infrastructure changes.

Blue Ray hasn't decided on a format change, so that is languishing - but not as unrealistic as the changes needed in the cable infrastructure.

The 4k streaming services are highly compressed - we will see how quickly they add (or don't add) content.

The 4k TV's at the moment are very high quality, and I expect you are getting a better picture - enjoy...


----------



## trip1eX

tarheelblue32 said:


> Just because my ass can't discern the difference between 300 thread count sheets and 600 thread count sheets does not make it a marketing scam.


MIght not be a good analogy since there is controversy on how threads are counted in sheets.


----------



## bradleys

trip1eX said:


> MIght not be a good analogy since there is controversy on how threads are counted in sheets.


Not dragging me into a thread-count argument!


----------



## trip1eX

The Netflix model scales alot easier than the cable model so it is very easy for Netflix to introduce a 4k version of a programeven if there isn't much demand yet.


----------



## trip1eX

The scam part of 4k is making it all about the resolution when that is only one small factor on what makes a great picture.


----------



## bradleys

trip1eX said:


> The scam part of 4k is making it all about the resolution when that is only one small factor on what makes a great picture.


Agreed - create a format that addresses HD Motion Blur, Motion Lag and Game Lag and I am all ears! I would be far more interested in seeing a 2K source with 48fps content than a 4k with 24fps and a TV that can handle that rapid refresh rate...


----------



## HarperVision

trip1eX said:


> The scam part of 4k is making it all about the resolution when that is only one small factor on what makes a great picture.


+1


----------



## ac3243

It's a shame HD broadcast was so long delayed. By the time we switched over, better technology was available. MPeg4 for example. That alone would have allowed a higher bit rate per channel and maybe we could have higher frame rates. The truth is broadcasters resisted as much as possible and were not overly concerned by PQ. 

Other than the cost of resampling content libraries for 4K, content providers have little incentive until a new standard becomes a big enough market segment. 

The distribution methods seem to be internet only until some work is done on a 4K storage method. Anyone hear what the next gen portable storage method will be? I hate paying for things twice so I have been an early adopter of DVD and BluRay as they last a long time and don't cost every time I wish to show them.


----------



## Dan203

bradleys said:


> Agreed - create a format that addresses HD Motion Blur, Motion Lag and Game Lag and I am all ears! I would be far more interested in seeing a 2K source with 48fps content than a 4k with 24fps and a TV that can handle that rapid refresh rate...


4k TV will be progressive and 60fps. Most movies are 24fps because that's how they're shot and it's better to watch them at their native frame rate then using some sort of interpolation like telecine. Some newer movies are starting to be shot at 48fps. I'm sure the new 4K BD spec will include that as an option and as long as your TV has a 240Hz refresh rate then it will be able to play them natively as well.


----------



## Bigg

ac3243 said:


> The real problem with 4k is sources. Look how long it's taken content providers to upgrade to HD(720/1080). Even after the Government delayed it 10 years. Netflix and other digital content providers have a chance to really erode the older providers if they can build up content fast enough to keep 4k TV owners interested. If content fails to keep pace, there will be long delay before 4k becomes mainstream.


HUH? The government had nothing to do with delaying HDTV. You are very confused. The government delayed the shutdown of analog OTA. Not only did the digital HD stations go online more than a decade before that, HD was really popularized by DirecTV and cable, not OTA.


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> HUH? The government had nothing to do with delaying HDTV. You are very confused. The government delayed the shutdown of analog OTA. Not only did the digital HD stations go online more than a decade before that, *HD was really popularized by DirecTV and cable, not OTA.*


And don't forget Zoom!


----------



## Bigg

HarperVision said:


> And don't forget Zoom!


You mean Voom LOL? Yeah, that was a mess from the get-go!


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> You mean Voom LOL? Yeah, that was a mess from the get-go!


Oh yeah that's right. I mixed it up with that old PBS early teen show haha!

Come on and zooma, zooma, zoom, zoom, zooooom!


----------



## tarheelblue32

"DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year"

http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


----------



## JWhites

tarheelblue32 said:


> "DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year"
> 
> http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


TiVo is used on wireline and cable systems.


----------



## tarheelblue32

JWhites said:


> TiVo is used on wireline and cable systems.


This thread has discussed satellite systems.


----------



## aaronwt

tarheelblue32 said:


> "DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year"
> 
> http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


Does DirecTV already have STBs out that will output the UHD content in it's native resolution?


----------



## Bigg

tarheelblue32 said:


> "DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year"
> 
> http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


That's just VOD over IP, not an actual linear broadcast. It is a niche product at best, requiring a 4k TV, cable or fiber internet, AND DirecTV...


----------



## cackleberry

tarheelblue32 said:


> "DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year"
> 
> http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/


While this article may relate to a niche for DirecTV, this quote is important:

_Many commentators compare the current buzz around Ultra-HD to the early days of 3-D and argue that interest in Ultra-HD may just peter out as it has largely done for 3-D, Watkins told Via Satellite. However, we would argue that Ultra-HD is a natural progression from HD and will ultimately become the standard resolution for displays. Consumers consistently cite picture quality as a key criteria when buying a new TV and Ultra-HD TV will offer not only increased pixel count but also wider color range and better contrast ratio leading to brighter images._

I just hope TiVo is getting ready.


----------



## trip1eX

cackleberry said:


> While this article may relate to a niche for DirecTV, this quote is important:
> 
> _"Many commentators compare the current buzz around Ultra-HD to the early days of 3-D and argue that interest in Ultra-HD may just peter out as it has largely done for 3-D," Watkins told Via Satellite. "However, we would argue that Ultra-HD is a natural progression from HD and will ultimately become the 'standard' resolution for displays. Consumers consistently cite picture quality as a key criteria when buying a new TV and Ultra-HD TV will offer not only increased pixel count but also wider color range and better contrast ratio leading to brighter images."_
> 
> I just hope TiVo is getting ready.


Meh. Not happening anytime soon.

Cable cos are still carrying analog channels. Nothing is even 1080p. They compress 1080 as it is. Sports are in 720p.

Tivo though could very well be ready for it though. It would make for good marketing.


----------



## aaronwt

trip1eX said:


> Meh. Not happening anytime soon.
> 
> Cable cos are still carrying analog channels. Nothing is even 1080p. They compress 1080 as it is. Sports are in 720p.
> 
> ..............


The majority of US sports channels are actually in 1080i. The 720P Sports channels are in the minority. Something like two thirds of the Sports channels broadcast in 1080i.


----------



## tarheelblue32

aaronwt said:


> The majority of US sports channels are actually in 1080i. The 720P Sports channels are in the minority. Something like two thirds of the Sports channels broadcast in 1080i.


But ESPN is the biggest player, and they do all their sports channels in 720P.


----------



## Dan203

I went to a talk once where the head programming guy from ESPN was the speaker. He said that they actually shoot all their footage in 1080p and then down sample to 720p because they do not like interlaced video. So I'm betting we see cable systems outputting 1080p before we see 4k. There is nothing stopping them from doing 1080p/60 on cable. They have the bandwidth and most modern HD boxes should be able to output it, or at the very least downres to 720p on the fly. They could even make it H.264 and make a 1080p channel require the same bandwidth as current 1080i MPEG-2 channels. 

4k is super niche right now, but 1080p sports would be a HUGE improvement for sports fans. That's what cable should be focusing on, rather then some niche buzzword that's a decade or more from true implementation. (if at all)


----------



## aaronwt

tarheelblue32 said:


> But ESPN is the biggest player, and they do all their sports channels in 720P.


Yes but I'm taking all sports channels into account. Not just the Big one that everyone is forced to subsidize.


----------



## aaronwt

Dan203 said:


> I went to a talk once where the head programming guy from ESPN was the speaker. He said that they actually shoot all their footage in 1080p and then down sample to 720p because they do not like interlaced video. So I'm betting we see cable systems outputting 1080p before we see 4k. There is nothing stopping them from doing 1080p/60 on cable. They have the bandwidth and most modern HD boxes should be able to output it, or at the very least downres to 720p on the fly. They could even make it H.264 and make a 1080p channel require the same bandwidth as current 1080i MPEG-2 channels.
> 
> 4k is super niche right now, but 1080p sports would be a HUGE improvement for sports fans. That's what cable should be focusing on, rather then some niche buzzword that's a decade or more from true implementation. (if at all)


I doubt they would mess with it because your average person just isn't going to care. Plus 1080P60 would also take up a large amount of bandwidth wouldn't it? Current 1080P content is typically 1080P24 or maybe 1080P30.
But since UHD is the new thing that is what they are going to try and push. Just like when 3D was newer.


----------



## Dan203

1080p/60 has twice as many pixels per second as 1080i, so theoretically it would require double the bandwidth. But encoding progressive content is actually more efficient so it wouldn't really require double. Throw in H.264 and you could get it down to about the same size as a current 1080i HD channel.

1080p/24 is used for movies. They do that because movies are shot at 24fps (or 48fps on some new stuff), so anything higher requires interpolation. Better to display the content at it's native frame rate if you can. It's not used to save bandwidth, even though the streams are smaller because of it.

The problem with UHD is the content isn't even ready yet. At least with 3D you could get actual 3D content. Buying an UHD display today would be like buying a 3D TV and using it exclusively to watch non-3D content in that weird fake 3D mode.


----------



## DigitalDawn

I believe that ESPN, ABC and FOX transmit in 720p.


----------



## Dan203

DigitalDawn said:


> I believe that ESPN, ABC and FOX transmit in 720p.


That is correct. ABC ad Fox broadcast in 720p so there is no chance they would switch to 1080p because that's not supported by ATSC. However ESPN is a cable channel and they record everything in 1080p, so they could send it over to cable/DSS as 1080p if they wanted to have a full 1080p channel.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> That is correct. ABC ad Fox broadcast in 720p so there is no chance they would switch to 1080p because that's not supported by ATSC. However ESPN is a cable channel and they record everything in 1080p, so they could send it over to cable/DSS as 1080p if they wanted to have a full 1080p channel.


There's no reason why the broadcast networks couldn't send a 1080p stream to the cable and satellite companies for rebroadcast.


----------



## Bigg

ESPN could send a full 1080p channel, but none of the cable providers would want to carry it, as some boxes would probably freak out with 1080p. The biggest improvement that we could see NOW is better bitrates or better quality with H.264.

ESPN got it dead wrong with 720p vs. 1080i. 1080i is now upwards of 70% of the market channel wise, and there's a darn good reason. If you have a good de-interlacer, 1080i looks WAY better than 720p. ESPN still looks very good, as they put a LOT of effort into their productions, and have some of the best sound in the business, but 1080i done well will blow 720p out of the water, even for sports. I am a little biased, having a properly sized display (just barely, I'm 9' from a 60"), and I have a video processor doing de-interlacing and scaling, but I can tell the difference. That being said, I'd rather have well done 720p (ESPN) over crappy 1080i (CBSSN) for sports any day of the week.

I hope H.264 helps, as the cable companies are just out of bandwidth.


----------



## HarperVision

But when ESPN and other sports networks made the decision to use 720p over 1080i, unfortunately that wasn't the case Bigg.


----------



## Dan203

tarheelblue32 said:


> There's no reason why the broadcast networks couldn't send a 1080p stream to the cable and satellite companies for rebroadcast.


The cable companies get their feed from the local broadcaster, not the network, so that it has all the local overlays, commercials, news, etc... But even if they could get a feed from the network itself those are already converted to their final resolution before transmission. So they'd have to work a deal where they got a special feed, which is highly unlikely.



Bigg said:


> ESPN could send a full 1080p channel, but none of the cable providers would want to carry it, as some boxes would probably freak out with 1080p.


They'd likely have to make it an H.264 channel to fit into the bandwidth anyway, which would limit it to newer boxes that should be able to handle 1080p just fine.


----------



## Bigg

HarperVision said:


> But when ESPN and other sports networks made the decision to use 720p over 1080i, unfortunately that wasn't the case Bigg.


What, the encoding wasn't as good? They could switch. Both formats use about the same bandwidth, and boxes can handle either one. 1080i60 is actually a rather clever way to broadcast, and most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1080i60 and 1080p60...



Dan203 said:


> They'd likely have to make it an H.264 channel to fit into the bandwidth anyway, which would limit it to newer boxes that should be able to handle 1080p just fine.


And then they'd have two feeds of it out there sucking up bandwidth. They'd be much better off at that point just sending a 19mbps MPEG-2 1080i60 feed out for everyone, it would look absolutely gorgeous, and probably 95% as good as 1080p60. There are a few out there at 16-17mbps, and they are amazing. I can't imagine how good a "full bitrate" feed would look...


----------



## Dan203

When I went to the talk with the guy from ESPN he was dead set against interlaced video. Hated it! I was the video expert in the crowd so I asked quite a few questions, and he pretty much said there was no way they were going to 1080i, ever.


----------



## HarperVision

Bigg said:


> *What, the encoding wasn't as good? They could switch. Both formats use about the same bandwidth, and boxes can handle either one. 1080i60 is actually a rather clever way to broadcast, and most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between 1080i60 and 1080p60... * And then they'd have two feeds of it out there sucking up bandwidth. They'd be much better off at that point just sending a 19mbps MPEG-2 1080i60 feed out for everyone, it would look absolutely gorgeous, and probably 95% as good as 1080p60. There are a few out there at 16-17mbps, and they are amazing. I can't imagine how good a "full bitrate" feed would look...


 Well circa 1997- 2000 encoders, scalers, deinterlacers, etc. couldn't keep up with fast motion so with 1080i and fast motion sports, especially with lots of lines like football and basketball, you would get tons of jaggies and combing. I remember some old CBS Sports broadcasts of basketball at 1080i and they looked pretty horrible as soon as the camera panned to follow action down the court.


----------



## kokishin

tarheelblue32 said:


> "DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year"
> 
> http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/2014/09/22/directv-to-begin-4k-broadcasts-this-year/





Bigg said:


> That's just VOD over IP, not an actual linear broadcast. It is a niche product at best, requiring a 4k TV, cable or fiber internet, AND DirecTV...


I've had Directv for over 12 years. Switching to Comcrap TV and Roamio Pro next week.

Re: Directv's VOD over internet, their VOD servers are very slow for regular content. MY ISP provides ~100Mbps down/up so I know the client side is not the bottleneck. Can't imaging how long it will take to download VOD 4K content from Directv but I think at best, it would be an overnight download.


----------



## trip1eX

aaronwt said:


> The majority of US sports channels are actually in 1080i. The 720P Sports channels are in the minority. Something like two thirds of the Sports channels broadcast in 1080i.


Really? News to me. IF eSPN, ABC and fox do 720p. That's 3 out of 5 big sports channels. NBC and CBS are others. All the sports channels I get seem to come under the umbrella of one of those 5 although ESPN and ABC are both part of Disney right?

Anyway bandwidth is same for 1080i vs 720p so... and none of this is taking any further compression into account... Point being that we already aren't getting the best picture that they can technically deliver. Yet we are going to step up to 4k?

I know. I know. Marketing and business reasons would be an excuse here. I mean much easier to slap 4k onto something then say we are now delivering programs uncompressed in 1080p/1080i.


----------



## aaronwt

trip1eX said:


> Really? News to me. IF eSPN, ABC and fox do 720p. That's 3 out of 5 big sports channels. NBC and CBS are others. All the sports channels I get seem to come under the umbrella of one of those 5 although ESPN and ABC are both part of Disney right?
> 
> ...............


Here is the list I used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television_in_the_United_States



> AltitudeHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> BeIN SportHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> BeIN Sport en EspañolHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> CBS Sports NetworkHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> ESPNHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> ESPN2HD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> ESPNewsHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> Fox Soccer PlusHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> Fox Sports 1HD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> Fox Sports 2HD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> Gol TVHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Golf ChannelHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> MLB NetworkHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> MLB StrikeZoneHD	720p	Sports	Cable	No
> NBA TVHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> NBCSNHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> NFL NetworkHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> NFL RedZoneHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> NHL NetworkHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Outdoor ChannelHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Sportsman ChannelHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Tennis ChannelHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Time Warner Cable DeportesHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Time Warner Cable SportsNetHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Universal SportsHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> World Fishing NetworkHD	1080i	Sports	Cable	No
> Big Ten NetworkHD	720p	Sports - College	Cable	No
> ESPNUHD	720p	Sports - College	Cable	No
> Fox College SportsHD	720p	Sports - College	Cable	No
> Pac-12 NetworkHD	1080i	Sports - College	Cable	No
> Pac-12 Regional NetworksHD (All Networks)	1080i	Sports - College	Cable	No
> 4SDHD	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> Bright House Sports NetworkHD	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> Comcast SportsNetHD (All Networks)	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> Fox Sports NetworksHD (All Networks)	720p	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> MASNHD (MASN2)	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> Midco SNHD	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> MSGHD (MSG Plus)	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> NESNHD	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> Root SportsHD (All Networks)	720p	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> SNYHD	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> YESHD	1080i	Sports - Regional	Cable	No
> ESPN DeportesHD	720p	Sports - Spanish	Cable	No
> Fox DeportesHD	720p	Sports - Spanish	Cable	No


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> When I went to the talk with the guy from ESPN he was dead set against interlaced video. Hated it! I was the video expert in the crowd so I asked quite a few questions, and he pretty much said there was no way they were going to 1080i, ever.


That's unfortunate, because it would mean better PQ on ESPN.


----------



## Dan203

1080p would be even better. And given the weight ESPN carries with the MSOs if anyone could get them to transmit a 1080p channel it would be ESPN.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> 1080p would be even better. And given the weight ESPN carries with the MSOs if anyone could get them to transmit a 1080p channel it would be ESPN.


Do land cable co have the right to send out 1080P on any ch. ??


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> Do land cable co have the right to send out 1080P on any ch. ??


The right? They have no restrictions on the formats they're allowed to transmit if that's what you're asking. The CableCARD mandate was all about separating security from the box, it does not impose any limits on the resolution or encoding they are allowed to use.


----------



## lessd

Dan203 said:


> The right? They have no restrictions on the formats they're allowed to transmit if that's what you're asking. The CableCARD mandate was all about separating security from the box, it does not impose any limits on the resolution or encoding they are allowed to use.


It was not any cable card issue I was talking about it was the standard QAM that cable co may/or must use that may prevent 1080P xmission. Like OTA, I don't think a OTA station can change their standard xmission to 1080P without FCC approval. I was asking if land base cable co were under some standard that they must follow.


----------



## tarheelblue32

lessd said:


> It was not any cable card issue I was talking about it was the standard QAM that cable co may/or must use that may prevent 1080P xmission. Like OTA, I don't think a OTA station can change their standard xmission to 1080P without FCC approval. I was asking if land base cable co were under some standard that they must follow.


They are not. The FCC would have a problem with stations switching to 1080P OTA broadcasts because it would require technical changes that would probably break a lot of ATSC tuners, at least in older TVs. 1080P cable transmissions would probably break some QAM TV turers too, but cable companies are under no FCC requirement to transmit any clear QAM channels.


----------



## tarheelblue32

Dan203 said:


> The cable companies get their feed from the local broadcaster, not the network, so that it has all the local overlays, commercials, news, etc... But even if they could get a feed from the network itself those are already converted to their final resolution before transmission. So they'd have to work a deal where they got a special feed, which is highly unlikely.


They could get 2 separate feeds, one from the network in 1080p and one from the local affiliate in 1080i or 720p, and during commercials they could flip to the local feed and then during the program itself flip back to the network feed.


----------



## Dan203

lessd said:


> It was not any cable card issue I was talking about it was the standard QAM that cable co may/or must use that may prevent 1080P xmission. Like OTA, I don't think a OTA station can change their standard xmission to 1080P without FCC approval. I was asking if land base cable co were under some standard that they must follow.


There are bandwidth issues with ATSC, plus regulations which require approval for format changes. There is a proposed extension to ATSC that would add 1080p as an H.264 format (the only way to squeeze it into the max 19.2Mbps each station is allotted) but I don't think it was ever approved by the FCC nor do I think it would actually get used by the stations if it were. There are too many ATSC devices in existance that can't do H.264 and most are owned by the poorest amoung us who couldn't afford to replace them. And there isn't enough bandwidth to transmit two signals, even if the other one was SD it would be tight.

Cable has not such rules. They can transmit whatever format they want and QAM does not define any formats or resolutions. QAM is simply a modulation standard for transmitting digital data over cable lines. The digital data can be any format they choose.


----------



## HarperVision

Actually, 1080p24 & 30 were a part of the ATSC specs:



> The ATSC specification and MPEG-2 allow the use of progressive frames coded within an interlaced video sequence. For example, NBC stations transmit a 1080i60 video sequence, meaning the formal output of the MPEG-2 decoding process is sixty 540-line fields per second. However for prime-time television shows, those 60 fields can be coded using 24 progressive frames as a base - actually, an 1080p24 video stream (a sequence of 24 progressive frames per second) is transmitted, and MPEG-2 metadata instructs the decoder to interlace these fields and perform 3:2 pulldown before display, as in soft telecine.
> The ATSC specification also allows 1080p30 and 1080p24 MPEG-2 sequences, however they are not used in practice, because broadcasters want to be able to switch between 60 Hz interlaced (news), 30 Hz progressive or PsF (soap operas), and 24 Hz progressive (prime-time) content without ending the 1080i60 MPEG-2 sequence.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Television_Systems_Committee_standards


----------



## Dan203

You're right, I was referring to 1080p/60. I knew 1080p/30 & 24 were in there, but as I pointed out in that other thread broadcasters discovered long ago that interlaced at 60 fields per second provides better perceived motion then progressive at 30fps. And 24fps is only used for movies, so no broadcaster is going to use that unless there is one showing movies exclusively.

The only way to get 1080p/60 small enough to fit in the 19.2Mbps limitation is to use H.264.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> 1080p would be even better. And given the weight ESPN carries with the MSOs if anyone could get them to transmit a 1080p channel it would be ESPN.


I'd be like a pig in mud with a 19mbps MPEG-2 1080i60 feed. ESPNUHD on Comcast is amazing, it's got to be 16-18mbps, although it's still obviously 720p60. They don't seem to care about tri-muxing for channels that are only available on 860mhz systems. I'd much rather have 19mbps 1080i60 than have them make a "1080p" channel, and still have to transmit the 720p channel, and compress the snot out of both of them...



tarheelblue32 said:


> They could get 2 separate feeds, one from the network in 1080p and one from the local affiliate in 1080i or 720p, and during commercials they could flip to the local feed and then during the program itself flip back to the network feed.


That wouldn't work. It would have to be done by the affiliates at 1080p. Why does everyone care about 1080p so much? Bitrates matter a LOT more. 1080i60 looks pretty much the same as 1080p60 if you have a decent bitrate, and it still uses less bandwidth...



Dan203 said:


> There are bandwidth issues with ATSC, plus regulations which require approval for format changes. There is a proposed extension to ATSC that would add 1080p as an H.264 format (the only way to squeeze it into the max 19.2Mbps each station is allotted) but I don't think it was ever approved by the FCC nor do I think it would actually get used by the stations if it were. There are too many ATSC devices in existance that can't do H.264 and most are owned by the poorest amoung us who couldn't afford to replace them. And there isn't enough bandwidth to transmit two signals, even if the other one was SD it would be tight.
> 
> Cable has not such rules. They can transmit whatever format they want and QAM does not define any formats or resolutions. QAM is simply a modulation standard for transmitting digital data over cable lines. The digital data can be any format they choose.


I'd rather see OTA use H.264 to get a "full bitrate" main channel at 9.5mbps (equivalent to 19mbps MPEG-2), and then they can put crappy subchannels on the rest of the channel. For backwards compatibility, they could put an SD copy of the main feed in MPEG-2 as well...


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> Why does everyone care about 1080p so much? Bitrates matter a LOT more. 1080i60 looks pretty much the same as 1080p60 if you have a decent bitrate, and it still uses less bandwidth...


You keep saying that, but it's not true. 1080i is only as good as the deinterlacer that's converting it. Deinterlacing is a trick. It's using blurring and interpolation to remove the tearing that would normally be obvious when displaying interlaced content on a progressive display. No matter how good the deinterlacer is it will never be as good as a real 1080p picture. There is actually less processing happening when displaying a 720p video on your 1080p display.

With H.264 they could get the bitrate down enough that a full 1080p stream could fit into the same slot as a current 720p or 1080i MPEG-2 stream.


----------



## HarperVision

Dan203 said:


> You're right, I was referring to 1080p/60. I knew 1080p/30 & 24 were in there, but as I pointed out in that other thread broadcasters discovered long ago that interlaced at 60 fields per second provides better perceived motion then progressive at 30fps. And 24fps is only used for movies, so no broadcaster is going to use that unless there is one showing movies exclusively. The only way to get 1080p/60 small enough to fit in the 19.2Mbps limitation is to use H.264.


True. They also do record many prime time dramas at 1080p24, the same as movies, to simulate that "film look" rather than have it obviously look like video as it does with sitcoms and soap operas.


----------



## Dan203

Hmm, you're right. I did some checking and most dramas are shot at 24fps to preserve the "film look". However most multi-camera sitcoms, reality TV, news and soaps are shot either native 1080i or at 1080p/60 and converted to 1080i/720p depending on the channel. So for those dramas they must be using telecine, which means if it weren't for the commercials screwing up the cadence you could actually run a reverse telecine on them and get the original 1080p/24 which would be equivalent to the commercial BD. (at least in resolution, not bitrate)


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Dan, sort of OT, but considering all of the video processing stuff involved, which video output settings do you suggest people set the Tivo to if they have a 1080p TV.... select 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, or just 1080p for everything?

I have a mid-range Panny plasma (42", ~$1K when released) so I would think it handles processing well. Right now I have the Roamio set to only 1080p/60, but I'm unsure if that's optimal.


----------



## Dan203

Either set it exclusively to 1080p or check all the resolutions and let your TV do the processing. If you choose any other settings then you have a chance of there being double processing, once by the TiVo and once by the TV.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw

Dan203 said:


> Either set it exclusively to 1080p or check all the resolutions and let your TV do the processing. If you choose any other settings then you have a chance of there being double processing, once by the TiVo and once by the TV.


Yeah I guess that's what I'm asking. Is there a preference between "output all" and "1080p only" if the 1080p TV does a good processing job, or doesn't it matter since they're both apparently good?


----------



## HarperVision

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Yeah I guess that's what I'm asking. Is there a preference between "output all" and "1080p only" if the 1080p TV does a good processing job, or doesn't it matter since they're both apparently good?


That all depends on which device has the better video processing, your TiVo or your TV. The only way to really tell would be to have some sort of ATSC or QAM test pattern generator that you could inject into your TiVo's RF input at each resolution. Then you would just use those test patterns to evaluate the quality of its video processing. Rinse and repeat with the pattern generator connected directly to your TV and then choose which one, based on test pattern performance, gives you the best images, especially with motion.

Of course, most of us don't have an expensive generator, so then I would suggest watching something like football or basketball, that has lots of diagonal lines and fast horizontal motion, and use that to evaluate how well it handles things like aliasing, moire', combing, judder, etc.

This is the entire reason for having the third party outboard video scaler/processor market made famous by Faroudja, TAW, Key Digital, Snell & Wilcox and currently Lumagen, DVDO, etc.


----------



## aaronwt

lessd said:


> It was not any cable card issue I was talking about it was the standard QAM that cable co may/or must use that may prevent 1080P xmission. Like OTA, I don't think a OTA station can change their standard xmission to 1080P without FCC approval. I was asking if land base cable co were under some standard that they must follow.


Isn't 1080P24 and 1080P30 are part of the ATSC spec? So they could broadcast at that resolution with MPEG2 if they wanted to. For a box to be compliant with the ATSC spec doesn't it need to be able to receive that spec? But that doesn't mean it needs to be able to output at that same resolution.

EDIT:  I guess i should ahve read the rest of the thread first.


----------



## aaronwt

Bigg said:


> ...................d rather see OTA use H.264 to get a "full bitrate" main channel at 9.5mbps (equivalent to 19mbps MPEG-2), and then they can put crappy subchannels on the rest of the channel. For backwards compatibility, they could put an SD copy of the main feed in MPEG-2 as well...


No need for an SD copy of the HD feed. If a box is receiving the ATSC broadcast it should be capable of receiving the HD feed. Even if it is only capable of outputting an SD resolution.


----------



## Dan203

A shift to H.264 is unlikely for OTA. I believe it would require an act of congress, and at this point congress doesn't seem capable of doing anything.


----------



## Bigg

Dan203 said:


> You keep saying that, but it's not true. 1080i is only as good as the deinterlacer that's converting it. Deinterlacing is a trick. It's using blurring and interpolation to remove the tearing that would normally be obvious when displaying interlaced content on a progressive display. No matter how good the deinterlacer is it will never be as good as a real 1080p picture. There is actually less processing happening when displaying a 720p video on your 1080p display.
> 
> With H.264 they could get the bitrate down enough that a full 1080p stream could fit into the same slot as a current 720p or 1080i MPEG-2 stream.


Well, the end result looks pretty darn good to me. Now I'm a bit biased, as I'm feeding my video native from the XL4 out through a $500 video processor (DVDO EDGE) to my 1080p TV... 720p still doesn't look as good because of the resolution interpolation. 1080i looks amazing when it has a decent bitrate. That being said, I still prefer the production value of ESPN, so ESPN in 1080i would be a match made in heaven.

Or they could carry 4 HD's per QAM in 1080i. Probably won't happen though. Knowing Comcast, they are going to do at least 5, if not 6 HD's per QAM when they move to H.264...



aaronwt said:


> No need for an SD copy of the HD feed. If a box is receiving the ATSC broadcast it should be capable of receiving the HD feed. Even if it is only capable of outputting an SD resolution.


Point missed. Those boxes are likely MPEG-2 only, and wouldn't see the H.264 feed.



Dan203 said:


> A shift to H.264 is unlikely for OTA. I believe it would require an act of congress, and at this point congress doesn't seem capable of doing anything.


True. And that would require explaining to Congress what H.264 is!!! Although, could a broadcaster do it if they kept an MPEG-2 SD feed up?


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> True. And that would require explaining to Congress what H.264 is!!! Although, could a broadcaster do it if they kept an MPEG-2 SD feed up?


I don't know exactly what the laws are there. I "think" at the very least the FCC would need to approve the extension that enables H.264. Although even if they did I'm not sure the broadcasters would do it. They're not really the front of the pack innovated types.


----------



## wmcbrine

Broadcasters have already been experimenting with things even more exotic than H.264, like ATSC-M/H (which in fact includes H.264). It's all good, as long as they have one in-the-clear MPEG2 subchannel. (And it doesn't have to be HD, because nobody is required to broadcast HD at all.)


----------



## Jonathan_S

HarperVision said:


> That all depends on which device has the better video processing, your TiVo or your TV. The only way to really tell would be to have some sort of ATSC or QAM test pattern generator that you could inject into your TiVo's RF input at each resolution. Then you would just use those test patterns to evaluate the quality of its video processing. Rinse and repeat with the pattern generator connected directly to your TV and then choose which one, based on test pattern performance, gives you the best images, especially with motion.
> 
> Of course, most of us don't have an expensive generator, so then I would suggest watching something like football or basketball, that has lots of diagonal lines and fast horizontal motion, and use that to evaluate how well it handles things like aliasing, moire', combing, judder, etc.
> 
> This is the entire reason for having the third party outboard video scaler/processor market made famous by Faroudja, TAW, Key Digital, Snell & Wilcox and currently Lumagen, DVDO, etc.


And in the case of TiVo or TV you also should consider if the TV takes extra time to adjust when the input resolution changes.

I didn't have any change in picture quality jump out at me between having the TiVo in "all output" and having it in "1080 only", but I definitely notice the half second or so of black screen as the TV adjusted each time the input resolution changed. So I ended up locking its output (and accepting what likely is a slightly reduced video quality) just to avoid the very jarring resolution change transitions.

Of course a quality outboard video scaler would fix that as well, but I wasn't willing to go there yet.  (And a TV that wasn't 6 years old might handle the transition more gracefully too)

Now for Blurays, that player is set to use native format because I don't channel surf or go into the menus often when watching movies. So one hiccup at the beginning of a movie bugs me much less than the more frequent changes I cause while watching TV.


----------



## Bigg

wmcbrine said:


> Broadcasters have already been experimenting with things even more exotic than H.264, like ATSC-M/H (which in fact includes H.264). It's all good, as long as they have one in-the-clear MPEG2 subchannel. (And it doesn't have to be HD, because nobody is required to broadcast HD at all.)


Right. That's what I was thinking. ~9mbps H.264 for the main HD channel, an MPEG-2 simulcast in SD, and then MPEG-2 SD sub-channels. Would be glorious! They probably don't want to do it though, because it would break HD on a lot of people's TVs, and the market that cares about the quality of the HD is a lot smaller than the market that can see HD vs. SD but not the absurd amount of compression that they use. Or they could just do it the right way and nuke the subchannels, and run a single 19mbps MPEG-2 HD channel, but they seem to feel compelled to keep the crap subchannels up...


----------



## aaronwt

More sub channel!s, more viewers, more commercials all means more money.


----------



## Bigg

aaronwt said:


> More sub channel!s, more viewers, more commercials all means more money.


Whoa... you're making the assumption that someone actually watches those garbage channels!  Plus, the audience for OTA isn't very desirable for advertisers, and I doubt anyone watches the subchannels on cable...


----------



## aaronwt

Bigg said:


> Whoa... you're making the assumption that someone actually watches those garbage channels!  Plus, the audience for OTA isn't very desirable for advertisers, and I doubt anyone watches the subchannels on cable...


I certainly record a lot from them. There are several older shows I have Season Passes set up for. Like the Six Million Dollar MAn and The Bionic Woman that are shown on the subchannels that I record from FiOS. I do need to check my PC to see if I finally have all the episodes that aired from those shows.
(But I do have one or two of SPs from sub-channels on my OTA Roamio BAsic too).

And I know my GF has several SPs from sub-channels setup on her S3 TiVos. But she is OTA only.


----------



## Bigg

aaronwt said:


> I certainly record a lot from them. There are several older shows I have Season Passes set up for. Like the Six Million Dollar MAn and The Bionic Woman that are shown on the subchannels that I record from FiOS. I do need to check my PC to see if I finally have all the episodes that aired from those shows.
> (But I do have one or two of SPs from sub-channels on my OTA Roamio BAsic too).
> 
> And I know my GF has several SPs from sub-channels setup on her S3 TiVos. But she is OTA only.


Wow. Two people. I honestly think 95% of cable subscribers don't know those channels exist. On most cable systems, they are buried way up in nowhere land. OTA users probably do, since if they surf around, they will hit them between the real channels.


----------



## aaronwt

Bigg said:


> Wow. Two people. I honestly think 95% of cable subscribers don't know those channels exist. On most cable systems, they are buried way up in nowhere land. OTA users probably do, since if they surf around, they will hit them between the real channels.


On FiOS they aren't buried anywhere. All the local HD channels start in the 500 range. Then all the sub-channels are located right before them, in the upper 400 range. At least I think it's the upper 400's. I know they are in the 400's but I don't typically look at the channel number except if I mess with the channel list. I typically just look at the guide and what is on. I don't care what the channel is because I only have all the HD channels in the guide, the english sub-channels, and a couple of cable SD channels.


----------



## trip1eX

aaronwt said:


> I certainly record a lot from them. There are several older shows I have Season Passes set up for. Like the Six Million Dollar MAn and The Bionic Woman that are shown on the subchannels that I record from FiOS. I do need to check my PC to see if I finally have all the episodes that aired from those shows.
> (But I do have one or two of SPs from sub-channels on my OTA Roamio BAsic too).
> 
> And I know my GF has several SPs from sub-channels setup on her S3 TiVos. But she is OTA only.


But do you actually watch these shows or just record them?


----------



## aaronwt

trip1eX said:


> But do you actually watch these shows or just record them?


I don't watch them on a regular basis. It depends on what I'm in the mood to watch. I could go weeks without watching them and then one week I might watch a bunch of episodes.


----------



## Dan203

Bigg said:


> Wow. Two people. I honestly think 95% of cable subscribers don't know those channels exist. On most cable systems, they are buried way up in nowhere land. OTA users probably do, since if they surf around, they will hit them between the real channels.


Ours are in the mid 200s after all the SD digital basic channels, but before the sports channels and premiums. The ONLY reason I know where they are is because years ago our local CW affiliate went bankrupt and was bought by the local Univision affiliate. Ever since then The CW has been broadcast as a sub channel of the Univision feed, so that's the only place to record it. There is a low power HD OTA feed coming from Reno with another call sign, but for some reason that one is not carried on cable at all. (this is why I have to use an HDHomeRun just to watch Arrow and Supernatural in HD)


----------



## Bigg

aaronwt said:


> On FiOS they aren't buried anywhere. All the local HD channels start in the 500 range. Then all the sub-channels are located right before them, in the upper 400 range. At least I think it's the upper 400's. I know they are in the 400's but I don't typically look at the channel number except if I mess with the channel list. I typically just look at the guide and what is on. I don't care what the channel is because I only have all the HD channels in the guide, the english sub-channels, and a couple of cable SD channels.


Comcast has them buried because they know no one wants them. So it's a self-perpetuating phenomenon. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be enough to convince the OTA broadcasters to get rid of those stupid vampire channels that are sucking the blood out of the main channel's MPEG-2 compression!



Dan203 said:


> Ours are in the mid 200s after all the SD digital basic channels, but before the sports channels and premiums. The ONLY reason I know where they are is because years ago our local CW affiliate went bankrupt and was bought by the local Univision affiliate. Ever since then The CW has been broadcast as a sub channel of the Univision feed, so that's the only place to record it. There is a low power HD OTA feed coming from Reno with another call sign, but for some reason that one is not carried on cable at all. (this is why I have to use an HDHomeRun just to watch Arrow and Supernatural in HD)


Pretty much.


----------

