# Series3 and 1080p



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

I don't understand why so many people on this forum think that a 1080p output on the Series3 is an unreasonable request simply because there is no television broadcast in that format. 

There are DVD players that take 480i DVDs and output them at 1080p, so why shouldn't the Series3 do the same?

The resolution of the content and the resolution of the outputs are 2 completely different things. How many people have a 720p display? Well, the fixed option on the Series3 allows you to output everything in 720p, even 1080i content. In, other words the Series3 de-interlaces and scales 1080i content down to 720p to match your display. 

Why shouldn't the Series3 de-interlace 1080i content and leave it at 1080p? 

The answer is that the video processor in the Series3 is not up to the task. Properly de-interlacing 1080i into 1080p is extremely processor intensive. A good external video processor that can properly de-interlace and scale content all the way to 1080p costs $3000, but I have heard that the chips inside them cost far less than that. The processor in the Series3 is two geneations behind Broadcom's most recent video processor. This is probably because the Series3 was designed a while ago, but CableLabs dragged their feet in certifying it. 

The fact of the matter is that most tvs have cheap video processors. This is why standard definition looks so bad on many HDTVs(including mine). 

If TiVo really wants to brand their product as "upmarket" then they should put a better video processor in the Series 4 that can output 1080p. That will give owners a true WOW factor that they can show their friends at one of those TiVo house parties.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

mfogarty5 said:


> I don't understand why so many people on this forum think that a 1080p output on the Series3 is an unreasonable request simply because there is no television broadcast in that format.
> 
> There are DVD players that take 480i DVDs and output them at 1080p, so why shouldn't the Series3 do the same?.


Because 1080p TVs already have a scaler in them capable of upsampling 1080i and 720p to 1080p. Adding one to the TiVo would just be a waste of money. The only way it wouldn't be a waste is if the scaler in the TiVo was better then the one in the TV, but that would make the S3 really expensive. Would you pay $3K for a TiVo that could do 1080p?

Dan


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> Because 1080p TVs already have a scaler in them capable of upsampling 1080i and 720p to 1080p. Adding one to the TiVo would just be a waste of money. The only way it wouldn't be a waste is if the scaler in the TiVo was better then the one in the TV, but that would make the S3 really expensive. Would you pay $3K for a TiVo that could do 1080p?
> 
> Dan


Hi Dan. I am confident that a good video processor in the Series 4 would look much better than the one in the display.

$3k is the cost of those units, not the cost of the processor itself. Heck even Broadcom's newest processor is much faster AND LESS EXPENSIVE expensive than the Broadcom processor in the Series3.

The processor in the Series3 is the same one as the HR10-250.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I was saying the entire TiVo would be $3K not just the chip, since that seems to be the going rate for a device that does this.

I think that if we do ever see a unit capable of this it will come in the form of a combo HD TiVo and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player. Just like how now the only SD TiVos capable of outputting 480p are the ones with DVD players built in.

Dan


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm actually with OP ... for 1080i broadcast channels, some signal is easily 1080p-convertable, but when there is high motion (Sports ... Sunday night Footbal being a prmie example on NBC), and the capture was made with a real 1080i camaera (such as the Sony HD cameras that most broadcast networks use), then my (admittedly cheap) 1080p TV's scaler does a barely-satisfactory job!

Of course, for something like Star Wars, captured at 1080p24 and broadcastat 1080i60 on Starz (or was it Showtime) recently ... there is no time varying information between successive 1080i60 frames and through the magical/confusing-terminology world of wobbing/3:2/2:3 up/down and sideways (!) conversion, my TV renders the 1080p24 as Lucas envisioned it (it's a different story that his story and the actors' vision is so abominably inferior to parts 4, 5 and 6 ...  )

I would VERY much have liked TiVo to include a simple, half-assed (but not as half-assed as my TV's) motion adaptive deinterlacer.

And Dan, that would barely have added a few $$ (yeah, likely 2 digits) to the cost-to-produce. It's not like the Westinghouse range of 37/42/46 1080p LCD tvs that use the same LCD panel as mine and sell for the same price are expensive! And they nixed the ATSC/QAM256 tuner my Sceptre has for a Farroudja Deinterlacer that is *excellent*. We all know how much ATSC tuners cost ($30ish)  It was just worth more to me (short-sightedly, perhaps?) than the deinterlacer, at the time.

So +1, OP.


----------



## charlesdf22 (Jun 14, 2003)

mfogarty5 said:


> Hi Dan. I am confident that a good video processor in the Series 4 would look much better than the one in the display.


Series 4??? Have you lost your mind? By the time they get around to putting out another Tivo we'll be up to 9billion P. I don't know if I'm up to waiting around several more years.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Because 1080p TVs already have a scaler in them capable of upsampling 1080i and 720p to 1080p. Adding one to the TiVo would just be a waste of money. The only way it wouldn't be a waste is if the scaler in the TiVo was better then the one in the TV, but that would make the S3 really expensive. Would you pay $3K for a TiVo that could do 1080p?


Mfogarty is correct that a 1080p deinterlace chip could significantly improve the performance of high-definition content on 1080p TVs.

The industry standard for 480i->480p is motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace. This method delivers the best possible picture without a loss in resolution. Unfortunately, right now, few if any 1080p HDTVs offer the same motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace for 1080i signals. Virtually all consumer 1080p TVs available today use inferior region-based deinterlace for HD signals, which isn't able to achieve 1920x1080 resolution for 1080i content with motion. This inferior deinterlace method is partly to blame for the motion blur you see on camera pans with high-definition content (poor deinterlace and excess compression are both factors). Proper motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace would eliminate many of these artifacts and provide the full 1920x1080p reconstruction.

There are now several relatively low-cost, motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace solutions on the market that -- if used by Tivo -- would offer a significantly better picture on a 1080p TV than you get now with the Series3. These chips just recently became available, so Tivo didn't have sufficient time to incorporate one in their design. Moreover, even if Tivo had the time, I doubt they would have used such a chip for cost reasons. These chips run $25 to $40 in 10,000 unit quantities. If Tivo plans to sell the Series3 for under $500 in the next year, then I doubt they are looking to add another $25+ chip to the box.

For those interested in further information on these 1080p deinterlace and scaling solutions, you can find it below:


 Gennum GF9450 with VXP (or press release)

 Silicon Optix (Teranex) Reon-VX (or press release)
A Tivo with either of these chips would *crush* the 1080p video and film performance of 95% of the 1080p TVs now on the market. That said, within the next 12 months, I expect TVs will start to incorporate this technology, which would make an implementation by Tivo redundant (at least for newer TVs).


----------



## seattlewendell (Jan 11, 2006)

mfogarty5 said:


> I don't understand why so many people on this forum think that a 1080p output on the Series3 is an unreasonable request simply because there is no television broadcast in that format.
> 
> There are DVD players that take 480i DVDs and output them at 1080p, so why shouldn't the Series3 do the same?
> 
> ...


OK smart guy. What would a Tivo like that cost?


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> OK smart guy. What would a Tivo like that cost?


The chip itself would cost $25 to $40, depending on the part used, but that doesn't include the cost of hardware or software (firmware) engineering to integrate it with the rest of the design.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Well said, bkdtv 

When I grow up, I want to be as eloquent & knowledgable as bkdtv!

(free sig fodder)


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

mfogarty5 said:


> A good external video processor that can properly de-interlace and scale content all the way to 1080p costs $3000, but I have heard that the chips inside them cost far less than that.


So you want a Platinum version of the S3 that costs $3,000 plus ~$700 for the HD DVR part?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Alls I wanna know is if the Sony SXRD XBR2s are usin' the good stuff.


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

HDTiVo said:


> Alls I wanna know is if the Sony SXRD XBR2s are usin' the good stuff.


Mr. Foo, a well-known XBR1 owner on AVS forums, just got his XBR2 this week and ran some tests. Apparently it does do pixel-based 1080i -> 1080p.

(This makes me happy, as I'm expecting delivery of one on Saturday.)


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Mr. Foo, a well-known XBR1 owner on AVS forums, just got his XBR2 this week and ran some tests. Apparently it does do pixel-based 1080i -> 1080p.


I think the verdict is still out on that.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Mr. Foo, ehh? And you trust every one of his reviews, Bar none ...I assume?


This needs a professionally done side-by-side comparison, but I have heard that Sony FINALLY got a few more things right with their new XBRs. Remind me ... the XBR2's are LCDs, right, made from Samsung-sourced LCDs? Or are these still the LCOS thingummies? (XBR1 LCOS'ies were severly flawed/underengineered in many ways, IIRC from my research when shopping ... no 1080p input capability, substandard scaling, silly dumbo ears ...)


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Remind me ... the XBR2's are LCDs, right, made from Samsung-sourced LCDs?


Sony has an XBR2 LCD line. They just released their XBR2 SXRD RPTVs in 60" and 70" versions this past week -- they are just now showing up in stores.


----------



## Sy- (Sep 29, 2005)

I have a question... Let say 5 years down the road all the networks, stations and cable companies sit down at a big round table and decide to start boadcasting full 1080p. Would the S3 tivo be able to take that signal and pipe it straight out via the HDMI port? It wouldn't have to upconvert the signal from 1080i as it is already 1080p so there would be no additional cpu overhead. Is it feasable that this could be done or is there some other factor limiting the S3 to 1080i?
~Sy


----------



## MScottC (Sep 11, 2004)

Sy- said:


> I have a question... Let say 5 years down the road all the networks, stations and cable companies sit down at a big round table and decide to start boadcasting full 1080p. Would the S3 tivo be able to take that signal and pipe it straight out via the HDMI port? It wouldn't have to upconvert the signal from 1080i as it is already 1080p so there would be no additional cpu overhead. Is it feasable that this could be done or is there some other factor limiting the S3 to 1080i?
> ~Sy


I seriously doubt this will happen. I doubt the networks and local stations will want to alienate the millions of viewers who don't have 1080p capable equipment for a minor (to most people) improvement in picture quality. It has been incredibly painful for the entire industry to migrate from SD to HD. Unlike the transistion from Black and White to Color, which was completely backward compatible, the migration from SD to HD was not. I doubt the industry wants to go through something like this again. Game boxes, and DVD players, which allow for outputs to be switched to match your display are a different story, and there 1080p will proliferate for those who want it.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> I think the verdict is still out on that.


If you find out, let "us" know.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

MScottC said:


> I doubt the networks and local stations will want to alienate the millions of viewers who don't have 1080p capable equipment


 :up: 
That would be a major change and unless there comes a way to simulcast "old" HD (ie. 1080i/720p), it won't happen for a very long time.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Is it feasable that this could be done or is there some other factor limiting the S3 to 1080i?


Tivo uses a two-year old CPU / decoder in the Series3 which cannot handle 1080p output.

That said, you aren't going to see broadcasters do 1080p video with MPEG-2 because of the steep bandwidth requirements. If we see any 1080p content on TV in the future, it will be on cable, likely in VC-1 or AVC (MPEG-4) format. The Tivo Series3 has a AVC / VC-1 decoder, so it can decode those 1080p video streams, but it can only output 1080i.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

Sony blurbs:



> *SXRD Panels * SXRD technology is the latest display technology developed by the legendary television engineers at Sony to meet and exceed the demands of a High Definition image at its full 1080 line resolution. Digitally transmitted High Definition signals can contain over 2 million individual detail points that need to be displayed accurately and rapidly. SXRD displays those 2 million detail points per SXRD panel accurately since the 3 SXRD panels actually contain enough pixels to fully display a 1080 line picture without interlacing it. SXRD has the speed to create a smooth, film like image. The SXRD panels have a blistering 2.5ms response time (total rise and fall time), which exceeds the demands of even the most rapidly moving High Definition images. And SXRD creates highly accurate, natural colors because the 3-panel design displays all the colors, all the time.





> What is SXRD technology?
> The SXRD acronym stands for Silicon X-tal Reflective Display, where X-tal is a common abbreviation for Crystal. The technology is an all-new approach to reflective liquid crystal microdisplays, one that far surpasses the currently available technologies.
> 
> How is SXRD technology different from LCoS?
> ...


http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/sxrd_new/faq.shtml


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

ashu said:


> Mr. Foo, ehh? And you trust every one of his reviews, Bar none ...I assume?


I never understand why people need to be derisive and put words in other people's mouths.

Read his test results yourself. He appears to have updated them recently.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

Unfortunately, based on Foo's updated results, it appears that the XBR2 doesn't offer motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace, but rather the cheaper (and inferior) region-based deinterlace.

It could be an improvement on the region-based deinterlace of previous models, but it's still inferior to what you'd get with a quality, per-pixel solution.

Two of the low-cost, motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace solutions I linked above just recently became available, so I expect we'll see RPTVs announced using this technology at CES in January.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

Aiken said:


> I never understand why people need to be derisive and put words in other people's mouths.
> 
> Read his test results yourself. He appears to have updated them recently.


Sorry you mistook a humorous post for an attempt at being derisive.
I guess I'm *foobar now!
*No offense meant to anyone with that name. Just a few Snickers.**
**Unless he's allergic to peanuts.

Clarification: thanks for posting the link. I thought YOU were being humorous and alluding to 'somebody-whose-name-you-couldn't-remember' over on avsforums.


----------



## Aiken (Feb 17, 2003)

ashu said:


> Sorry you mistook a humorous post for an attempt at being derisive.
> I guess I'm *foobar now!


Ack, my bad.  I'm a programmer, too, I should have noticed. Sorry.


----------



## Welshdog (Jan 4, 2005)

This is the scaler you want

Crystalio II

The $5500 version even comes with a hard drive for recording video.

Almost a Tivo!


----------



## eisenb11 (Sep 6, 2006)

mfogarty5 said:


> I don't understand why so many people on this forum think that a 1080p output on the Series3 is an unreasonable request simply because there is no television broadcast in that format.


That is because 1080p output is a worthless feature for a cable TV device.

The highest HD res is 1080i. In order to get 1080p, the S3 would have to upscale the picture to 1080p. If you have a 1080p capable TV, the TV will automatically upscale the picture from whatever-to-1080p so there is no reason why the S3 would have to do this.



> There are DVD players that take 480i DVDs and output them at 1080p, so why shouldn't the Series3 do the same?


Unless you're thinking of the $4,000 Denon DVD player with a built-in HQV scaler you've got your output resolutions confused.

Upscaling DVD players generally convert up to 1080i, not 1080p. Decent 1080p scaling requires a good scaler... and those are quite expensinve.



> Why shouldn't the Series3 de-interlace 1080i content and leave it at 1080p?


Because, unless you're doing a half-assed job of the 1080p scaling you need a good processor. Check out the Algolith Dragonfly. The Crystallio II. The Faroudja DVP1080. I believe the cheapest one in this list is $3,500. I'll get into chip costs later...



> The answer is that the video processor in the Series3 is not up to the task. Properly de-interlacing 1080i into 1080p is extremely processor intensive. A good external video processor that can properly de-interlace and scale content all the way to 1080p costs $3000, but I have heard that the chips inside them cost far less than that. The processor in the Series3 is two geneations behind Broadcom's most recent video processor. This is probably because the Series3 was designed a while ago, but CableLabs dragged their feet in certifying it.


Yes, the chip does cost less than $3,000. It depends on the chip. I think I read that the HQV chip sells for around $500. I think Gennum's chip is around $300.



> The fact of the matter is that most tvs have cheap video processors. This is why standard definition looks so bad on many HDTVs(including mine).


FYI, even with a good video processor analog SD doesn't really look to hot. There is a rule of thumb with scalers: "garbage in, garbage out".

There is also another rule-of-thumb... "you get what you pay for". Most video processors, even the entry level stuff, tend to cost as much of not more than most TVs.

I'm running a $3,000 video processor. That is more than most TVs out there. Analog SD isn't too bad, digital SD looks quite nice.



> If TiVo really wants to brand their product as "upmarket" then they should put a better video processor in the Series 4 that can output 1080p. That will give owners a true WOW factor that they can show their friends at one of those TiVo house parties.


I disagree on this. If you're truly targetting the "upmarket" then you don't care about scaling because "upmarket" customers have dedicated external scalers.

On top of that, you'll have to charge an "upmarket" price. The $800 for the S3 is what I would consider a "prosumer" price. In the "upmarket" I would expect the price to easily surpass $1,500.

Honestly, the only reason to integrate a good scaler in a device would be to target the prosumer market where one wants higher-end features but without the higher-end price... but with current pricing I don't see it being feasible.

Adding a nice scaler would drive the DVR from prosumer pricing into high-end pricing and now you're dealing with consumers with better hardware to handle the task so you're wasting money on a feature of no interest to them.


----------



## wmccain (Dec 16, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Because 1080p TVs already have a scaler in them capable of upsampling 1080i and 720p to 1080p. Adding one to the TiVo would just be a waste of money.


Absolutely correct.



Dan203 said:


> I was saying the entire TiVo would be $3K not just the chip, since that seems to be the going rate for a device that does this.


Well, actually $2K (e.g. DVDO iScan VP30).


----------



## wmccain (Dec 16, 2002)

MScottC said:


> I seriously doubt this will happen. I doubt the networks and local stations will want to alienate the millions of viewers who don't have 1080p capable equipment for a minor (to most people) improvement in picture quality. It has been incredibly painful for the entire industry to migrate from SD to HD. Unlike the transistion from Black and White to Color, which was completely backward compatible, the migration from SD to HD was not. I doubt the industry wants to go through something like this again.


True, true, true. Not to mention the fact that 1080p/60 requires _double_ the bandwidth of 1080i/60. Hence 1080p/60 will _never_ happen in broadcasting, where bandwidth is the most precious resource of all.

Besides, with 2:3 pulldown, 1080i/60 completely captures 24 fps film-sourced material, a bit redundantly in fact. So 1080p/60 would provide no improvement in PQ at all unless 1080p/60 video cameras existed. Which they don't.

Incidentally, 1080p/24 is a _standard, legal_ ATSC broadcast format. Every ATSC tuner, including the two inside the Series3, is required to support it. However, to the best of my knowledge, no broadcaster has ever used 1080p/24. Since that is the most natural format for movies, it _is_ showing up in the new HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs.


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

I'm so thankful the S3 is only $799.99.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

bkdtv said:


> Mfogarty is correct that a 1080p deinterlace chip could significantly improve the performance of high-definition content on 1080p TVs.
> 
> The industry standard for 480i->480p is motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace. This method delivers the best possible picture without a loss in resolution. Unfortunately, right now, few if any 1080p HDTVs offer the same motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace for 1080i signals. Virtually all consumer 1080p TVs available today use inferior region-based deinterlace for HD signals, which isn't able to achieve 1920x1080 resolution for 1080i content with motion. This inferior deinterlace method is partly to blame for the motion blur you see on camera pans with high-definition content (poor deinterlace and excess compression are both factors). Proper motion-adaptive, per-pixel deinterlace would eliminate many of these artifacts and provide the full 1920x1080p reconstruction.


For filmed material with 3-2 pulldown, however, the best de-interlace simply recognizes the field repeats and reconstructs the orginal full frames perfectly (without all kinds of complicated image analysis). I imagine that is easier to do if the MPEG decoder can give hints directly to the scaler.


----------



## vstone (May 11, 2002)

OK, folks, make up your mind.

Do you want it more expensive or less expensive?


----------



## HDTiVo (Nov 27, 2002)

vstone said:


> OK, folks, make up your mind.
> 
> Do you want it more expensive or less expensive?


That depends...


----------



## wmccain (Dec 16, 2002)

vman41 said:


> For filmed material with 3-2 pulldown, however, the best de-interlace simply recognizes the field repeats and reconstructs the orginal full frames perfectly (without all kinds of complicated image analysis). I imagine that is easier to do if the MPEG decoder can give hints directly to the scaler.


More than "hints", actually ... MPEG2 (and, I presume, MPEG4 as well) has a "field repeats" flag that not only says that a field is redundant, it eliminates the need to transmit (or store) the repeated field at all. This is intended to support 2:3 pulldown "better", but its use is often neglected.

Then there is 1080p/24, which captures film frames unambiguously. And its close cousin, 1080psf/24, which is "really" 1080i/48. The 1080psf/24 format is being used on the new high-definition DVDs, apparently as some kind of "compromise", but it is not a legal ATSC (broadcast) format. 1080p/24, however, _is_ a standard ATSC format.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

wmccain said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> Well, actually $2K (e.g. DVDO iScan VP30).


Good to see you over here from over on your usual haunts 

Just wanted to note, that while what Dan and you say is TRUE, it is not necessarily the desirable solution, considering *most* 1080p TVs have average/subpar deinterlacers, compared to most (source) CE devices. And THAT is the direction this discussion is going in ... even a cheap add-on chip in the S3 TiVo would be superior to the bulk of the in-TV deinterlacing solutions.

Of course, none would compare to the iScan VP30, but that's the whol point of not bothering with off-board!

FWIW, I can (subjectively, IMO) beat the iScan's quality for plain old DVD upconversion with my regular PC playing the disc ... with a commodity $100ish video card. But I can't do HD pass through on the PC. If the S3 TiVo included good deinterlacing in addition to some minimal scaling capabilities (720->1080) it would be a MUCH more attractive device for the middle-high-end consumer that doesn't want to bother with owning an offboard processor/upconverting solution!

And as bkdtv mentioned, those chips would add ONLY around $20-30 to the cost.


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

eisenb11 said:


> That is because 1080p output is a worthless feature for a cable TV device.
> 
> The highest HD res is 1080i. In order to get 1080p, the S3 would have to upscale the picture to 1080p. If you have a 1080p capable TV, the TV will automatically upscale the picture from whatever-to-1080p so there is no reason why the S3 would have to do this.


I don't understand your quote. You say that there is no reason for the TiVo to output 1080p yet you own a video processor that does the same thing. All I am saying is that TiVo could upgrade to Broadcom's newest chip that outputs 1080p for LOWER price than the current chip.

For those of us that have 1080p tvs, the ability to output 1080p from the TiVo would prevent the multi-second delay that occurs when switching between a 720p station and a 1080i station.



eisenb11 said:


> Upscaling DVD players generally convert up to 1080i, not 1080p. Decent 1080p scaling requires a good scaler... and those are quite expensinve.


Again, this is not tue. The Samsung HD-960 outputs 1080p and is $180.


----------



## TexasAg (Apr 2, 2006)

The problem is most TVs can't accept 1080p signals (esp. 1080p60) over HDMI. They can only accept 1080i. The newest models this year are really the first that support 1080p over HDMI. I think the HP DLP at the end of last year was the first to do it, and if I remember correctly it was kinda flaky. Even the really expensive models from Sony, JVC, and others last year couldn't do it.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Just wanted to note, that while what Dan and you say is TRUE, it is not necessarily the desirable solution, considering *most* 1080p TVs have average/subpar deinterlacers, compared to most (source) CE devices. And THAT is the direction this discussion is going in ... even a cheap add-on chip in the S3 TiVo would be superior to the bulk of the in-TV deinterlacing solutions.


If you have any doubts about the poor quality of HD deinterlace and scaling, look no farther than this October update from Gary Merson of Home Theater Magazine.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/

More than 80% of the tested displays failed to properly reconstruct the 1080p image from 1080p24 content delivered in 1080i60 format. This is the easiest possible type of 1080p image to reconstruct, yet more than 80% of the tested TVs couldn't do it. It's a pretty sad state of affairs.

I would like to see home theater publications make it very clear in their reviews whether displays pass all of these tests. If a display doesn't pass these tests, it has no business being called a 1080p TV, because it can't correctly reconstruct the full 1920x1080p image from a 1080i input.

My prediction: Any >$2000 display not using a scaler or deinterlacer solution from Silicon Optix or Genuum won't be competitive in 2H 2007.


----------



## rtjones (Oct 4, 2006)

Can someone please explain why TiVo chose the option of outputting fixed 1080i, in addition to 720p? I assume it is because they believe it will potentially produce a better image than 720p output, depending upon the qualit of one's video processor. I believe the majority of current HD monitors have 720 rows of resolution (my plasma has 768, I believe), so wouldn't they do better with 720p, vs deinterlacing the 1080i, then scaling to the monitor's native resolution?


----------



## sommerfeld (Feb 26, 2006)

rtjones said:


> Can someone please explain why TiVo chose the option of outputting fixed 1080i?


question assumes facts not in evidence.

The Series 3 has a bunch of different HD output modes:

From memory:

native (same mode as input signal)
fixed 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i
420p/720p hybrid (for tv's which don't do 1080i)
420p/1080i hybrid (for tv's which don't do 720p)

I choose to use fixed 1080i with my TV because the TV's picture glitches for a second or so when changing modes, and I can't see any difference in picture quality between the S3's scaler and my TV's scaler.

If the TV's scaler was obviously better I'd run with native.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Can someone please explain why TiVo chose the option of outputting fixed 1080i? I assume it is because they believe it will potentially produce a better image than 720p output, depending upon the qualit of one's video processor. I believe the majority of current HD monitors have 720 rows of resolution (my plasma has 768, I believe), so wouldn't they do better with 720p, vs deinterlacing the 1080i, then scaling to the monitor's native resolution?


I don't understand the question. You can set the S3 to fixed 720p, if you want.


----------



## rtjones (Oct 4, 2006)

bkdtv said:


> I don't understand the question. You can set the S3 to fixed 720p, if you want.


Why provide a fixed interlaced image to one's monitor, such as 1080i, when TiVo also provides a fixed progressive image, 720p? In other words, under what conditions would one want to send an interlaced image (vs a progressive image) to their monitor? A monitor must work harder to process 1080i vs 720p, so I'm assuming there is a visual advantage, but I don't undestand what that advantage is.


----------



## SCSIRAID (Feb 2, 2003)

rtjones said:


> Why provide a fixed interlaced image to one's monitor, such as 1080i, when TiVo also provides a fixed progressive image, 720p? In other words, under what conditions would one want to send an interlaced image (vs a progressive image) to their monitor? A monitor must work harder to process 1080i vs 720p, so I'm assuming there is a visual advantage, but I don't undestand what that advantage is.


Higher resolution... 1080 vs 720 lines of resolution.

I set my Tivo to native mode so the native format is preserved and the TV does any conversions needed.


----------



## bkdtv (Jan 9, 2003)

> Why provide a fixed interlaced image to one's monitor, such as 1080i, when TiVo also provides a fixed progressive image, 720p? In other words, under what conditions would one want to send an interlaced image (vs a progressive image) to their monitor? A monitor must work harder to process 1080i vs 720p, so I'm assuming there is a visual advantage, but I don't undestand what that advantage is.


1080i = 1920x1080
720p = 1280x720

The advantage is much higher resolution. For film-sourced content, the frame rate for both is 24 fps. Given the choice between 1920x1080p24 and 1280x720p24, why would anyone choose the latter?


----------



## mfogarty5 (Apr 27, 2006)

TexasAg said:


> The problem is most TVs can't accept 1080p signals (esp. 1080p60) over HDMI. They can only accept 1080i. The newest models this year are really the first that support 1080p over HDMI. I think the HP DLP at the end of last year was the first to do it, and if I remember correctly it was kinda flaky. Even the really expensive models from Sony, JVC, and others last year couldn't do it.


I want 1080p to be an OPTION just like 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i.

Using your logic, 480i shouldn't be an option either since the majority of sets won't accept 480i over HDMI.


----------



## TexasAg (Apr 2, 2006)

But there are many TVs that can take 480i. Very few can take 1080p (and probably none could when the S3 was being designed).


----------



## rickertk (Jan 23, 2002)

While many newer HD sets (plasma, LCD, DLP) are natively progressive scan, I think CRT and CRT rear projection HD displays are likely to be capable of 1080i native . There may be some older sets that won't take 720p inputs at all. These are the sets for which a 1080i fixed output is meant.

Keith


----------



## mikatc (Oct 14, 2006)

Absolutely, expensive but worth it!


----------



## jfh3 (Apr 15, 2004)

Can one of the hardware gurus here tell me (or offer an informed opinion) on how the scaler in the Series 3 compares to one in the Sony XBR1?

I just assumed the Sony would have a better scaler, but I'm not so sure.


----------



## sthor (Oct 1, 2006)

bkdtv said:


> 1080i = 1920x1080
> 720p = 1280x720
> 
> The advantage is much higher resolution. For film-sourced content, the frame rate for both is 24 fps. Given the choice between 1920x1080p24 and 1280x720p24, why would anyone choose the latter?


Perhaps they don't care about films. I don't. I have watched maybe 3 DVD's in the last 2 years. Occasionally watch PPV from my DirecTivo. I also watch zero prime time network tv.

I do like NASCAR which is broadcast primarily in 720p this year and totally in 720p when Fox/ABC/ESP provide all coverage. This is one of my prime reasons to upgrade to HDTV this year.

I am planning on buying a 720p Panasonic TH-58PX600U plasma this month. I have been watching the TIVO and DirecTv forums trying to decide whether to go with the S3/Brighthouse or HR20-700/DirecTv route for programming.


----------



## snorkeler (Nov 8, 2006)

Perhaps someone can explain how Sony can output 1080p from a $600 Playstation 3, and yet it is too difficult/expensive for TIVO.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

Because they aren't trying to make money on the hardware?

Also the playstation generates its own content, 1080p might actually make sense. There's no 1080p conent for a TiVo to display. 1080p is largely just a marketing thing to get people to part with more money unecessarily.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

btwyx said:


> Because they aren't trying to make money on the hardware?
> 
> Also the playstation generates its own content, 1080p might actually make sense. There's no 1080p conent for a TiVo to display. 1080p is largely just a marketing thing to get people to part with more money unecessarily.


Agree with everything but your last statement 

1080i source material looks vastly better on a 1080p display, as, of course, do Hi Definition movies on HDDVD or BluRay. How can you POSSIBLY disagree with that?

Couple all that with the potential for much more satisfying use as a PC monitor, and 1080p is a winner! ESPECIALLY considering a vast majority of so-called 720p displays are non-standard resolution (how many are 1280720) and don't even have symmetrical (square) pixels.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

ashu said:


> Mr. Foo, ehh? And you trust every one of his reviews, Bar none ...I assume?
> 
> 
> This needs a professionally done side-by-side comparison, but I have heard that Sony FINALLY got a few more things right with their new XBRs. Remind me ... the XBR2's are LCDs, right, made from Samsung-sourced LCDs? Or are these still the LCOS thingummies? (XBR1 LCOS'ies were severly flawed/underengineered in many ways, IIRC from my research when shopping ... no 1080p input capability, substandard scaling, silly dumbo ears ...)


Actually, the SXRD set is one of the best TVs on the market. XBR and XBR2 does not refer to a specific set, it's more of a marketing slogan for the higher end version of some SONY TVs. It's not an LCD panel - Samsung isn't involved as far as I know.

SXRD is SONY's version of LCoS (Liquid Crystal on Silicon). No Wobulation required here... 

BTW, I like the Dumbo ears.


----------



## DCIFRTHS (Jan 6, 2000)

snorkeler said:


> Perhaps someone can explain how Sony can output 1080p from a $600 Playstation 3, and yet it is too difficult/expensive for TIVO.


Because they are betting the farm on Blu-ray (BD), and want to get it into as many people's hands as possible. SONY loses a lot of money on the hardware in its gaming systems (just like Microsoft).


----------



## Bill McNeal (May 31, 2002)

Are HD-DVD and Blu-Ray the only applications where a 1080p would outshine a 1080i? Given the state of scalers on 1080p TVs now, this limited benefit doesn't seem worth the artifacts you would get from poor scaling of 1080i content (which as people have stated, isn't going anywhere anytime soon).


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ashu said:


> 1080i source material looks vastly better on a 1080p display, as, of course, do Hi Definition movies on HDDVD or BluRay. How can you POSSIBLY disagree with that?


I'd expect it'd depend on the individual display involved, just like all the other cases where people judge a display by numbers instead of picture quality. Also all the video content I've seen has ragged edges, so needs some overscan (just a couple off %), that would make matching 1080i content to a 1080 line display quite tricky. You'd probably be better off with a display which does not have exactly 1080 lines.


> Couple all that with the potential for much more satisfying use as a PC monitor, and 1080p is a winner! ESPECIALLY considering a vast majority of so-called 720p displays are non-standard resolution (how many are 1280720) and don't even have symmetrical (square) pixels.


For video not having 720 lines is a good thing, for just the reason I outlines above, and also for video, non square pixels are not a problem. For PC display, they do present a challenge. For PC display, most of them have 768 lines anyway, which is a PC resolition.

I'm not complaining about people wasting their money on 1080p, it means my next display will be a lot cheaper. I was looking at a Panasonic 50" Plasma display, the next generation is about 30% cheaper than I expected because the 768 line display is now the "low res" version, they've introduced 1080p displays as the flagships. Under $2k for a 50" plasma display (especially a good one like a Panasonic) is amazing.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

No overscan from HDDVD and BluRay players, and it can be disabled for 1080i source material.

Even for sources/TVs where that isn't possible, I still don't see how you can claim any 1080i/1080p source is better off being overscanned AND down-converted to a 720p (-ish) display as opposed to (just overscanned, if that, on) a 1080p display? 


And yeah, $2K for a 'base' 50" Panasonic Plasma IS quite incredible ... but then again a 47" 1080P LCD can be had for $1600! Prices are dropping on everything, and consumers win out!


----------



## tgibbs (Sep 22, 2002)

rtjones said:


> Can someone please explain why TiVo chose the option of outputting fixed 1080i, in addition to 720p?


Because it will avoid unnecessary loss of resolution by double conversion (1080i -> 720p -> 1080i) of 1080i shows for a monitor with a native resolution of 1080i. Depending upon whose 720p -> 1080i conversion is better (the monitor's or the S3's), the best choice for a 720p show and a 1080i monitor may be either native (if the monitor does it best) or 1080i fixed (if the S3 does it best), so it makes sense for both choices to be available.


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ashu said:


> I still don't see how you can claim any 1080i/1080p source is better off being overscanned AND down-converted to a 720p (-ish) display as opposed to (just overscanned, if that, on) a 1080p display?


Scaling by a small amount is a very difficult thing to do well, you get beat frequencies if you're not careful. If you have 1080 line content which is overscanned by a small amount, a 1080 line display is about the worst choice you can make. (Theoretically.)

Computer generated content is different, its an exact number of pixels and can be mapped 1:1. Video isn't.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

tgibbs said:


> Because it will avoid unnecessary loss of resolution by double conversion (1080i -> 720p -> 1080i) of 1080i shows for a monitor with a native resolution of 1080i. Depending upon whose 720p -> 1080i conversion is better (the monitor's or the S3's), the best choice for a 720p show and a 1080i monitor may be either native (if the monitor does it best) or 1080i fixed (if the S3 does it best), so it makes sense for both choices to be available.


Moot, because if they allowed 1080p output via upconversion, it would be selectable. Folks with 720p or 1080i (INCREASIBGLY rare in this era of digital displays) could choose the output res that suited their TVs.

Additionally, folks with access to better scalers could use said scalers instead (offboard or in-TV) and set the S3's output at Native (for ALL sources)


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

btwyx said:


> Scaling by a small amount is a very difficult thing to do well, you get beat frequencies if you're not careful. If you have 1080 line content which is overscanned by a small amount, a 1080 line display is about the worst choice you can make. (Theoretically.)
> 
> Computer generated content is different, its an exact number of pixels and can be mapped 1:1. Video isn't.


That explains overscanning ... but now (finally) you're agreeing that 1080p devices are not always 'useless'


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ashu said:


> That explains overscanning ... but now (finally) you're agreeing that 1080p devices are not always 'useless'


I never said they were useless. Just usually not the right tool for the job, they're being driven by marketing not any rational need.


----------



## ashu (Nov 8, 2002)

btwyx said:


> I never said they were useless. Just usually not the right tool for the job, they're being driven by marketing not any rational need.


Yeah, but they're not as overpriced (as you implied), nor are they specifically driving the cost of cheaper technology down. That technology is just that - cheaper to produce because of advances & innovations. You (of all people) should know & understand that.

Say or claiming that is like the late-ED adopters caliming HD was driving the cost of ED down, and it was an incredibly awesome deal, and they all picked up ED TVs. More power to them 

(you know I'm not JUST being confrontational, right? ... playing Devil's Advocate is the ONLY acceptable lawyer-like behaviour on earth!)


----------



## btwyx (Jan 16, 2003)

ashu said:


> Yeah, but they're not as overpriced (as you implied),


I never said they were overpriced. But if someone is being persuaded to get a 1080p, just because of the hype, when they'd be as well, or better, served by some other display, they're parting with more money than they need.


----------

