# Add a Roamio or a Mini?



## ericr74 (Apr 16, 2001)

I'm having my basement finished and I currently have a TiVoHD upstairs, plus a series 2 TiVo. The basement will need another TiVo. I'm trying to decide between replacing the TiVoHD with a Roamio and buying a Mini for the basement or simply adding a Roamio in the basement. What is the video quality of the Mini? Is there any discernible difference as compared to a Roamio? I think if it is the same I might as well go with the Mini since it's cheaper both in equipment prices and in ongoing Comcast cablecard charges.


----------



## wildcardd (Oct 2, 2007)

I've only had a mini for a short time, but the video quality is great. I don't notice any additional compression than watching a Tivo directly.

So here is the thing. If you add just a Roamio, you have an additional outlet fee with Comcast. 

If you replace your Tivo HD with a Roamio, you won't be paying an additional outlet fee. Take that money that you would save ($10-15/month) and use that to justify the mini. It is paid in 10-15 months.


----------



## JWhites (May 15, 2013)

Well if you just get a Roamio for the basement you'll get more storage and tuners to record more stuff, transfer recordings between the two, and do multi room viewing. If you get the mini and the Roamio, you'll only have one DVR to record stuff on, but it'll be easier to manage, and you can always get more minis for other rooms. Going with the Roamio and the mini gets you Xfinity OnDemand on both.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Go with the Roamio and Mini combo and save the money you would otherwise be paying comcast. There is no discernable difference in the video quality on the Mini. If the TiVoHD has lifetime service, sell it on ebay for a few hundred bucks.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

The video quality difference(if there is one) between the Mini and the Roamio is minimal. Although the Roamio can scale all content to 1080P60(and also has 1080P24 pass through) while the Mini is limited to 1080i scaling for it's highest resolution and 1080P24 pass through.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> The video quality difference(if there is one) between the Mini and the Roamio is minimal. Although the Roamio can scale all content to 1080P60(and also has 1080P24 pass through) while the Mini is limited to 1080i scaling for it's highest resolution and 1080P24 pass through.


Which makes a lick of difference since no one broadcasts in 1080p60 anyway. 1080i60 and 1080p60 are the exact same "resolution", only the refresh rate is different (i vs p). Only streaming services do 1080p and I'm pretty sure it's 1080p24, which both pass-thru anyway. It's really just a matter of where the better deinterlacer is, the TiVo or the display/video processor/AV receiver.


----------



## JWhites (May 15, 2013)

+1 :up:


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Which makes a lick of difference since no one broadcasts in 1080p60 anyway. 1080i60 and 1080p60 are the exact same "resolution", only the refresh rate is different (i vs p). Only streaming services do 1080p and I'm pretty sure it's 1080p24, which both pass-thru anyway. It's really just a matter of where the better deinterlacer is, the TiVo or the display/video processor/AV receiver.


Yes. Sometimes there will be a broadcast that will show the limitations of a TV or device deinterlacer. I remember the US Open a few years ago that screwed with a bunch of TV Deinterlacers while my video processor did a much better job. This doesn't seem to happen very often though which is why I only output 1080P60 and 1080P24 from my Roamio Pro. So that avoids the blanking between resolution changes between different resolution channels. For the Minis I run them in 1080i/1080P24 when connected to TVs and I run it at 720P60 for the Mini connected to my SLingbox.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> Yes. Sometimes there will be a broadcast that will show the limitations of a TV or device deinterlacer. I remember the US Open a few years ago that screwed with a bunch of TV Deinterlacers while my video processor did a much better job. This doesn't seem to happen very often though which is why I only output 1080P60 and 1080P24 from my Roamio Pro. So that avoids the blanking between resolution changes between different resolution channels. For the Minis I run them in 1080i/1080P24 when connected to TVs and I run it at 720P60 for the Mini connected to my SLingbox.


If you have a nice outboard video processor, then why would you count on the inferior processor in the Roamio? Doesn't that make your investment in it pointless?


----------



## ericr74 (Apr 16, 2001)

Thanks for the advice. Given this, I think I will go with the Roamio/HD swap and add a Mini. It's obviously a lot cheaper, and it seems like there isn't much downside.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> If you have a nice outboard video processor, then why would you count on the inferior processor in the Roamio? Doesn't that make your investment in it pointless?


Because when you use the native resolution output option on the TiVo, you have to wait a couple of seconds between resolution changes. Years ago I used to put up with it, but I don't have the patience anymore.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> 1080i60 and 1080p60 are the exact same "resolution", only the refresh rate is different (i vs p).


You've got that backwards. 1080i has the same refresh rate but half the resolution. With interlaced they still capture 60 times per second but they only capture every other line, alternating between odd and even. If you simply merge two consecutive fields together to create a progressive frame you'll see a slight mismatch between them which exposes the individual lines. This is what causes the tearing you see when watching interlaced video on a progressive display. TVs, and TiVos, have to use special interpolation techniques to merger interlaced fields and prevent that tearing.

The reason it's better for a TiVo to output 1080p is because of the UI. When TiVo outputs the UI as interlaced it's basically just removing every other line from a progressive image, sending it to the TV and then the TV is merging it back together using the same deintrlace technique it uses for actual video. This can create slight blurring in what should be a pristine image, which is especially noticeable on text and graphics with hard edges. When the TiVo outputs 1080p it's not processing the image at all and neither is your TV. It's a straight pass-through of the original image, like a computer connected to a monitor.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> You've got that backwards. 1080i has the same refresh rate but half the resolution. With interlaced they still capture 60 times per second but they only capture every other line, alternating between odd and even. If you simply merge two consecutive fields together to create a progressive frame you'll see a slight mismatch between them which exposes the individual lines. This is what causes the tearing you see when watching interlaced video on a progressive display. TVs, and TiVos, have to use special interpolation techniques to merger interlaced fields and prevent that tearing.
> 
> The reason it's better for a TiVo to output 1080p is because of the UI. When TiVo outputs the UI as interlaced it's basically just removing every other line from a progressive image, sending it to the TV and then the TV is merging it back together using the same deintrlace technique it uses for actual video. This can create slight blurring in what should be a pristine image, which is especially noticeable on text and graphics with hard edges. When the TiVo outputs 1080p it's not processing the image at all and neither is your TV. It's a straight pass-through of the original image, like a computer connected to a monitor.


Uhhhh, No. You're talking temporal resolution, not true resolution. This is a common mistake. No matter how you slice it, 1080i and 1080p have the EXACT SAME amount of unique pixels, 1920 x 1080. As I said, with the correct deinterlacing applied, they will result in the same image. It is a timing thing (refresh rate), not resolution, which is the same.

From here: http://www.howtogeek.com/132486/what-is-the-difference-between-1080p-and-1080i/

*Resolution:
Both 1080p and 1080i have 1080 horizontal lines of vertical resolution which with a widescreen aspect ratio of 16:9 results in a resolution of 1920 × 1080 pixels (2.1 megapixels). It is not true that 1080i has a lower vertical resolution than 1080p.

Frames vs. fields:
1080p is a frame-based or progressive-scan video where you are dealing with frames. You have frame rate and it is expressed in frames per second.

1080i is a field-based or interlaced or interleaved video where you are dealing with fields. You havefield rate and it is expressed in fields per second.

Question: [In 1080i] all the odd lines are displayed, followed by all the even lines. This means that only 1/2 the resolution (540 lines or pixel rows) is displayed on the screen at any give time  in other words, only 540 pixel rows are displayed at any given time.

Answer: No. For LCD all 1080 lines are always displayed, for CRT displays usually much less than half of of the lines are displayed at any given time which is equally true for both 1080i and 1080p.

The phrase only 540 pixel rows are displayed at any given time is extremely misleading. All 1080 rows-of-pixels usually are displayed at once (and even if they werent, theyd still appear to be to the human eye), but only half of them will be updated in any given frame. Its effectively the refresh-rate, not the resolution, thats cut in half.*

and here: http://www.cnet.com/how-to/1080i-and-1080p-are-the-same-resolution/

*There still seems to be some confusion about the difference between 1080i and 1080p. Both are 1,920x1,080-pixel resolution. Both have 2,073,600 pixels. From one perspective, 1080i is actually greater than Blu-ray. And, you can't even get a full 1080p/60 source other than a PC, camcorder, or some still cameras that shoot video.

True, 1080i and 1080p aren't the same thing, but they are the same resolution. Let the argument commence......

......What about 1080p?
Yes, what about it? Your 1080p TV accepts many different resolutions, and converts them all to 1,920x1,080 pixels. For most sources, this is from a process known as upconversion. Check out my article, appropriately called " What is upconversion ?" for more info on that process.

When your TV is sent a 1080i signal, however, a different process occurs: deinterlacing. This is when the TV combines the two fields into frames. If it's done right, the TV repeats each full frame to create 60 "fps" from the original 30.

If it's done wrong, the TV instead takes each field, and just doubles the information. So you're actually getting 1,920x540p. Many early 1080p HDTVs did this, but pretty much no modern one does. In a TV review, this is the main thing we're checking when we test deinterlacing prowess.*

http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/1080ivs1080p.htm

http://hometheaterhifi.com/technica...ion-1080p-tv-why-you-should-be-concerned.html

If the TiVo menu is native 1080p, then I see the point you're making, but it is still the same resolution, period, and the quality of the end result on the display is still dependent on the scaling and deinterlacing of whatever is in the chain AFTER the TiVo (receiver, scaler, Display Device). If TiVo throws away half those fields, then that's on them.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's not what I'm saying though. With interlaced the camera still takes a picture 60 times per second. But it only stores half the vertical lines for each one. Odd for one, even for the next, etc..., etc... If you combine two of those samples then they do equal 1080 lines of resolution, but they are not from the same moment in time so they are not technically a single frame. There is about a 17ms difference between the odd lines and the even lines. This is what causes the tearing effect you see when you watch an interlaced source on a progressive display. TVs use deintelacing to reduce or eliminate the tearing, but if they're dealing with a static image, like a UI, rather then a moving picture they can actually cause a blurring effect.

And the Roamio does output full 1080p/60, so it's true 1080p.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

I think you're still confused Dan. And 1080i is actually better for still images, not worse. It's the motion that trips it up. 1080i's just scanned differently (60 fields/sec) vs 1080p's 30 frames/sec. It's the same. 2 fields equals 1 frame, so with good deinterlacing, they're equal. 1080p60 is just 1080p(30x2) or even 24x2 for films/Blu-rays. NO content the TiVo currently receives is broadcast at true 1080p60 so what I said is applicable and 100% true.

P.S. - if you don't believe me, ask Joe Kane, Stacey Spears, Kris Deering and a host of other experts in this field.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I am an expert in this field. I write video editing/encoding software for a living. 

Let me explain how it works... with progressive video they take a full picture of whatever is in front of the lens X times per second. So 1080p/24 is taking 24 full resolution shots every second, 1080p/30 is taking 30 and 108p/60 is taking 60. With interlaced video they still take 60 shots per second but they only store half the frame, every other line, alternating between odd and even. So while a 1080i video technically has the same number of pixels as a 1080p/30 video, every other line in a give "frame", after the fields are combined, is actually from a different moment in time. This creates a mismatch which results in tearing effect you see if filtering is not applied.

The reason interlaced video exists is because back when broadcast TV was being standardized the CRT displays they were using were not fast enough to redraw the complete screen 60 times per second, so they had to choose between 30fps progressive or 60 fields per second interlaced. They discovered that interlaced video had smoother perceived motion, so they settled on interlaced. When HDTV was being standardized in the 90s they were faced with a similar limitation, but this time it was a bandwidth constraint. A 1080p/60 video encoded with MPEG-2 (the best available at the time) would be to big to fit into bandwidth allotted to broadcasters. So the spec was written with a choice between 1080p/30 and 1080i if you wanted the full resolution, or 720p/60 if you wanted full frame rate progressive. They were still dealing with CRTs at the time so broadcasters chose interlaced because it was familiar and they knew it provided smoother perceived motion. They didn't foresee the mass shift to progressive displays that would make dealing with interlaced video more difficult and necessitate an extra deintrlacing step.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> I am an expert in this field. I write video editing/encoding software for a living.  Let me explain how it works... with progressive video they take a full picture of whatever is in front of the lens X times per second. So 1080p/24 is taking 24 full resolution shots every second, 1080p/30 is taking 30 and 108p/60 is taking 60. With interlaced video they still take 60 shots per second but they only store half the frame, every other line, alternating between odd and even. So while a 1080i video technically has the same number of pixels as a 1080p/30 video, every other line in a give "frame", after the fields are combined, is actually from a different moment in time. This creates a mismatch which results in tearing effect you see if filtering is not applied. The reason interlaced video exists is because back when broadcast TV was being standardized the CRT displays they were using were not fast enough to redraw the complete screen 60 times per second, so they had to choose between 30fps progressive or 60 fields per second interlaced. They discovered that interlaced video had smoother perceived motion, so they settled on interlaced. When HDTV was being standardized in the 90s they were faced with a similar limitation, but this time it was a bandwidth constraint. A 1080p/60 video encoded with MPEG-2 (the best available at the time) would be to big to fit into bandwidth allotted to broadcasters. So the spec was written with a choice between 1080p/30 and 1080i if you wanted the full resolution, or 720p/60 if you wanted full frame rate progressive. They were still dealing with CRTs at the time so broadcasters chose interlaced because it was familiar and they knew it provided smoother perceived motion. They didn't foresee the mass shift to progressive displays that would make dealing with interlaced video more difficult and necessitate an extra deintrlacing step.


Let me explain THIS.......You're preaching to the choir. I've been in broadcast radio and TV since 1988. I was the commandant and an instructor of a schoolhouse teaching this for the USAF/US government. I did this all from 21,000 feet above the earth in an airborne broadcast platform that was able to be tuned on the fly to all worldwide standards, not just the USA. I was on the team that designed the follow on platform and transmission system and attended many an NAB and technology interchanges. I was the transmitter engineer for an NBC affiliate during the digital transition. I had a hand in the processing features and design of the award winning TAW Rock+ video scaler and HD800/900 projectors. So now that we have our "man things" out of our pants to prove who's is bigger, let's get down to what I AM talking about.

I am NOT disagreeing on the technology that you are talking about. What I AM saying is that NOTHING the TiVo is sending to your display is native 1080p60 (except the GUI as you state). So in this case sending 1080i or 1080p as your resolution setting from your TiVo means NOTHING, with the exception of the few streaming 1080p24 videos and if you care that your menu has a jaggie or two. We aren't talking about cameras and encoding here, we are talking about the VIDEO signal coming out of the TiVo!


----------



## buckyswider (Aug 31, 2003)

so he should stick with the mini eh


----------



## JWhites (May 15, 2013)

Phew how about those (insert sports team name here) they sure look like the team to beat for the championship. :up:

No matter the resolution, the quality of an image depends on the quality of the display components such as the display panel itself. You more likely will not get the pristine image from a $200 display as you would a $2400 display. And Ultra HD displays and displays of very large sizes are only going to further perpetuate the problem. Feeding a UHD display of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines or FUHD display of 7680 pixels × 4320 lines an image of 1920 pixels x 1080 lines is simply not going to look good, unless something has an amazing up converter which I think is gonna be rare. The image would be as bad as putting 480i or 576i content on a large 1080p display, in short, crud.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> I am NOT disagreeing on the technology that you are talking about. What I AM saying is that NOTHING the TiVo is sending to your display is native 1080p60 (except the GUI as you state). So in this case sending 1080i or 1080p as your resolution setting from your TiVo means NOTHING, with the exception of the few streaming 1080p24 videos and if you care that your menu has a jaggie or two. We aren't talking about cameras and encoding here, we are talking about the VIDEO signal coming out of the TiVo!


It matters for 720p. Sending 720p from a TiVo set to output 1080i requires double processing. It has to upsample (gonna happen either way) then it has to combine every 2 frames into one containing the odd lines from one and the even from the other. Then it's going to send that to your TV which is going to apply a deinterlace filter to the stream to get it back to progressive. When you convert 720p to 1080p the ONLY thing it needs to do is upsample, it retains the full 60fps and your TV does not have to process the signal at all.

And for 1080i video the deinterlacing is happening in the TiVo and the TV does not need to process it at all.

No matter the source there IS an advantage to a TiVo that can output as 1080p. Whether or not you'd actually notice it is debatable, but it reduces the amount of processing done to the signal and as such improves the video quality.


----------



## JWhites (May 15, 2013)

Does that not make the TiVo work harder thus possibly causing performance problems?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I assume it's handled by dedicated hardware in the GPU.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> It matters for 720p. Sending 720p from a TiVo set to output 1080i requires double processing. It has to upsample (gonna happen either way) then it has to combine every 2 frames into one containing the odd lines from one and the even from the other. Then it's going to send that to your TV which is going to apply a deinterlace filter to the stream to get it back to progressive. When you convert 720p to 1080p the ONLY thing it needs to do is upsample, it retains the full 60fps and your TV does not have to process the signal at all. *And for 1080i video the deinterlacing is happening in the TiVo and the TV does not need to process it at all. No matter the source there IS an advantage to a TiVo that can output as 1080p. Whether or not you'd actually notice it is debatable, but it reduces the amount of processing done to the signal and as such improves the video quality.*


*

True about 720p, good point. I thought about that a few posts back when I was replying to aaronwt and it flew right by me while you and I were "debating". 

The bolded point above about the 1080i being deinterlaced and processed in the TiVo was part of the exact point I was trying to make. That it all comes down to what device has the best video processor (deinterlacing, scaling, anti aliasing, judder eliminator, etc.), the TiVo (setting it to 1080p for all incoming resolutions), or setting it to native and letting a better external processor take over, like a nice DVDO, Lumagen, Faroudja, QDeo, Snell & Wilcox, etc. This is actually the BEST option if available. I think he brought this topic up in the first place, when he said he had a DVDO Edge but didn't use it for his TiVo. I asked what the point was then. His answer was acceptable to me when he said it was more for signal acquisition convenience and worth the trade off.*


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JWhites said:


> Phew how about those (insert sports team name here) they sure look like the team to beat for the championship. :up: .......


I think the team you're looking for, after tonight's total blowout of the Bucs, is the Atlanta Falcons! Are they that good or are the Yuckaneers that bad?


----------



## JWhites (May 15, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> I think the team you're looking for, after tonight's total blowout of the Bucs, is the Atlanta Falcons! Are they that good or are the Yuckaneers that bad?


Which do _you_ think?  All I know is the Seahawks are the team to beat.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JWhites said:


> Which do you think?  All I know is the Seahawks are the team to beat.


E-A-G-L-E-S.........EAGLES!!!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

REDSKINS!!!  Although I'm hardly confident about the Philly/Washington game on Sunday.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> REDSKINS!!!


Soon to be Washington Natives.


----------



## kherr (Aug 1, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Soon to be Washington Natives.


If there was a legitimist problem with the name, why did people wait till now to have a concern ....... What was it 40 or 60 years ago when the team started .....


----------



## JWhites (May 15, 2013)

The only thing red about that teams skin is their behinds because they're always getting whooped.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JWhites said:


> The only thing red about that teams skin is their behinds because they're always getting whooped.


And there'll be more of the same this week against the Eagles!


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> And there'll be more of the same this week against the Eagles!


The dreamer in me says No. But the realist in me knows that's probably true.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

aaronwt said:


> The dreamer in me says No. But the realist in me knows that's probably true.


Yep, Foles + Sproles = SuperBowls!


----------

