# are all movies on HBO HD channel 70 actually high-definition?



## Leila (Apr 28, 2006)

are all movies on HBO HD channel 70 actually high-definition? I've noticed that
some movies look really bad... like they do on TNT HD's "fake" high-definition movies... 

Or am I just imagining it?  

Thanks!


----------



## litzdog911 (Oct 18, 2002)

Not all HBO HD movies are true HiDef broadcasts because some of their movies are not HiDef transfers. So sometimes you're seeing upconverted standard definition movies, which usually looks better than the SD feed on Ch 501, but isn't true HiDef.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Regardless of the source used, DTV's HD channels are compressed versions of HD (or upconverted non-HD) programming that fall short of true HD. True HD is 1920x1080i (or 1080p) resolution whereas DTV broadcasts their HD channels in 1280x1088i. Most OTA broadcasters transmit in 1920x1080i, although some only transmit in 1280x720p, most notably Fox affiliates.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

Well, "True HD" (your term) is pretty hard to find in broadcast content. Anything 720p or better is HD and the HBO HD content is HD. True, some may be better than others.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Granted, the term "true HD" may be a stretch. My point was mainly to point out that OTA broadcasts are not compressed and DTV broadcasts are. They do, however, fall under the category of HD because anything at 1280x720 or better is considered HD under the definition of the standard. OTA broadcasts simply look better than DTV since they don't suffer from loss due to excessive compression.


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

Try watching a good blu-ray or HD-DVD. The clarity and lack of digital artifacts compared to OTA HD or D* HD is STUNNING on my 70 inch JVC. Only a 720p set, but it can demonstrate the difference very clearly, no pun intended.

I can only imagine these on a 70 inch 1080p set.  

Sorry about being a bit off topic.


----------



## tucsonbill (Aug 11, 2004)

SHOMan said:


> Try watching a good blu-ray or HD-DVD. The clarity and lack of digital artifacts compared to OTA HD or D* HD is STUNNING on my 70 inch JVC. Only a 720p set, but it can demonstrate the difference very clearly, no pun intended.
> 
> I can only imagine these on a 70 inch 1080p set.
> 
> Sorry about being a bit off topic.


How would you explain that your blu ray or hd dvd looks so much better on your 720p set than 720p ota does? Got a theory, or just a bs opinion?


----------



## ike (Feb 26, 2002)

tucsonbill said:


> How would you explain that your blu ray or hd dvd looks so much better on your 720p set than 720p ota does? Got a theory, or just a bs opinion?


That's easy. OTA HD is not the end-all-be-all in every case. It's often better than Satellite but some OTA HD stinks. Some local broadcasters do not allocate enough bandwidth to their feed - just like satellite doesn't.

THe most pure HD signal is likely going to come from Blu Ray or HD DVD.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

I've seen numerous 4x3 SD movies on HBO-HD.

It's just a mirror of regular old HBO that just happens to show the HD versions of some movies when available.

It'd be nice if when HBO was showing one of those movies that aren't available in HD, HBO-HD would show something different that was in HD, make it a true HD channel all the time.


phox


----------



## Sven (Jan 8, 2003)

tucsonbill said:


> How would you explain that your blu ray or hd dvd looks so much better on your 720p set than 720p ota does? Got a theory, or just a bs opinion?


Have to jump in here. There's several reasons why HD-DVD/BluRay could look a lot better than OTA HD.

First, OTA is around 19 mb/s, HD-DVD/BluRay are usually 30+mb/s, the biggest difference this will make is preventing macroblocking (during fast motion scenes, the picture looses detail and breaks up into large blocks).

The second reason is HD-DVD/BluRay typically use more advanced compression codecs like VC1 or H.265 as opposed to the older MPEG 2 that OTA uses. These newer compression codecs typically handle the high resolution of HD better than MPEG 2.

When talking about most movies on HBO in HD, a lot of the times the picture is zoomed in or cropped so they fill the screen. This also effectively reduces the resolution. If you take a 2.35 aspect ratio film and zoom it in so it fills the full 16:9 aspect ratio, then the picture will look a lot worse. Take TNT HD's recent airing of LOTR in HD, they sent a zoomed in picture of 2.35 films and it barely even looked HD to me. Take a 640x480 picture on your PC, look at it in normal 1:1 resolution, then compare it to full screen, zoomed in, and you will see it just doesn't look as detailed.

When you get into HD-DVD vs DirecTV/Comcast HD, they compress the signal a lot more than OTA, I think it's 15mb/s so there is even more macroblocking.


----------



## ike (Feb 26, 2002)

Sven said:


> Have to jump in here. There's several reasons why HD-DVD/BluRay could look a lot better than OTA HD.
> 
> First, OTA is around 19 mb/s, HD-DVD/BluRay are usually 30+mb/s, the biggest difference this will make is preventing macroblocking (during fast motion scenes, the picture looses detail and breaks up into large blocks).
> 
> When you get into HD-DVD vs DirecTV/Comcast HD, they compress the signal a lot more than OTA, I think it's 15mb/s so there is even more macroblocking.


I agree. But there seems to be more to it than just the bitrate.

My father lives in Johnstown, PA and only gets one local channel (NBC) via OTA. On relatively still programming (Like Jay Leno), the picture looks better than any DirecTV HD channel that I receive here in Northern, VA. But on fast moving scenes (like football), his NBC HD OTA gets all sorts of macroblocking - worse than what I ever see on any of my DirecTV HD channels, including NFL Sunday Ticket.

I wonder why that is? If NBC HD OTA in Johnstown, PA is actually less than 15mb/s, wouldn't even non-action programming look worse than what I normally get from DirecTV HD?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

Why would I care if DTV compresses the signal down if my TV can only do 1080i\720p lines of resolution anyway? isn't it just a question of who compresses it? 

It seems like the density of what they send would be more important than the resolution of what they send.


----------



## Sven (Jan 8, 2003)

ike said:


> I agree. But there seems to be more to it than just the bitrate.
> 
> My father lives in Johnstown, PA and only gets one local channel (NBC) via OTA. On relatively still programming (Like Jay Leno), the picture looks better than any DirecTV HD channel that I receive here in Northern, VA. But on fast moving scenes (like football), his NBC HD OTA gets all sorts of macroblocking - worse than what I ever see on any of my DirecTV HD channels, including NFL Sunday Ticket.
> 
> I wonder why that is? If NBC HD OTA in Johnstown, PA is actually less than 15mb/s, wouldn't even non-action programming look worse than what I normally get from DirecTV HD?


OTA can look better than DirecTV because over the air can be true 1080i resolution, 1920x1080. DirecTV on all but a few HD channels is 1280x1080 so you are losing a little resolution that way. On a set with 1080i/p you will probably notice the difference.

Something you have to realize about compression is that for static scenes, the picture can still look very good even if it's heavily compressed. My local news in Denver looks fantastic in NBC on HD because there isn't much going on, not a lot of camera pans and things. The way video compression works is by taking each frame of the picture and comparing what changes between the frames. If there is not a lot of motion then they can get away with a lot of compression because the picture does not change much. But take that same compression and put a football game, where the camera is panning constantly across a surface with fine detail (grass) and it goes to crap.

Also you have to consider the source of the material. Stuff like the local news and Conan Obrien on NBC here look really really good because they are using HD cameras and everything stays digital. With digital cameras there is going to be less video noise. Shows like Law and Order which are done to film then transfered to digital will have film grain which can really make the picture look soft if compressed too much.



HiDefGator said:


> Why would I care if DTV compresses the signal down if my TV can only do 1080i\720p lines of resolution anyway? isn't it just a question of who compresses it?
> 
> It seems like the density of what they send would be more important than the resolution of what they send.


The problem is management of the source material. With a DVD/HD-DVD/BluRay, the material is, ideally, compressed just one time. They make a digital master then author it to DVD or HD and compress it just once. When you're talking movies on Cable/Satellite, the studio gives a copy to the station (HBO / TNT), that company more that likely compresses it again, then that signal is passed to the cable/satellite provide who then compresses it again. Even if the bitrate is kept high, compressing things over and over is going to cause a loss in quality.

The main point with HD-DVD is that there is no one between you and the movie interfering with the quality. There is no Cable company who is interested in getting the most channels through their system and compressing them. They can say they offer HD and only give you 1MB/s, as long as the picture is 1280x720 at a minimum they can say it's HD even if it breaks up all the time and looks like crap. There is no local station that doesn't yet have HD hardware so anytime there is a news alert they switch back to upscaled 480i signals (which all local stations but NBC do here in Denver).

On my TV, a 50" plasma, 1366 x 768, HD-DVD looks much better to me than anything OTA or over DirecTV. Not to mention the improved sound formats that HD-DVD includes.


----------



## RandCfilm (Dec 20, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> Why would I care if DTV compresses the signal down if my TV can only do 1080i\720p lines of resolution anyway? isn't it just a question of who compresses it?
> 
> It seems like the density of what they send would be more important than the resolution of what they send.


You have the right idea, but you are looking at it the wrong way. The resolution is not changing when they compress, it is how much information (density) of the actual picture is still original instead of combined together. So because of compression the image is blurred together so there is less information (density) to transmit and loss if image detail is the end result.
Somebody can correct me if I am wrong here.


----------



## Squonk (Jun 8, 2005)

SHOMan said:


> Try watching a good blu-ray or HD-DVD. The clarity and lack of digital artifacts compared to OTA HD or D* HD is STUNNING on my 70 inch JVC. Only a 720p set, but it can demonstrate the difference very clearly, no pun intended.
> 
> I can only imagine these on a 70 inch 1080p set.
> 
> Sorry about being a bit off topic.


 wow, talk about your early adopters. I think I will wait until the format wars are over and HD DVD players drop to about 300 bucks.


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

tucsonbill said:


> How would you explain that your blu ray or hd dvd looks so much better on your 720p set than 720p ota does? Got a theory, or just a bs opinion?


Gee, I feel blessed to get a response from such a crank.

Yes, I have more than a theory, and you might look in the mirror with respect to the BS opinion.

Sven and Ike have explained it very well.

On the PS3, the display will show you the bit-rate and encoding type. VC-1 encoding seems to be looking the best and the bit rates in fast motion scenes are in the upper 20's and higher.

Real simple - Better data (encoding method) and More data = better pic than OTA. Particularly related to macro-blocking. Every watch CSI Miami? 1080i on our CBS affiliate looks great until a fast pan across the skyline of Miami.

One more thing, my JVC seems to like 1080i input better than 720p. It seems logical that the native resolution would be best, but small details from 1080i sources look better than 720p. I also get a bit more of the image due to overscan issues on the 720p input. Normal for this particular set.

That said, my set has nothing to do with why Blu-ray or HD-DVD look better than OTA. As has been stated, it's all about the data.

Enough BS for you?

Have a nice day!


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

Squonk said:


> wow, talk about your early adopters. I think I will wait until the format wars are over and HD DVD players drop to about 300 bucks.


I am not really an early adopter, but I did get the wife a PS3 and after watching Talladega Nights I was blown away. I went out the day after Xmas and got the $200 drive for the XBox. Santa gave me some gift cards. The PS3 is the way to go. It's half game machine, half Blu-ray player. So, Blu-ray only cost me $300.

Now, about those format wars, they won't be over anytime soon. We are talking years most likely, according to analysts. The discs are only a couple bucks more than regular DVDs, and now I don't have to worry about which format wins.

Warner is coming out with a Total HD disc that uses double-sided media. One side Blu-ray, one side HD-DVD. It appears they feel the format war will not be short-lived.

The cost of admission (well, at least for one format) is less than I paid for my HR10-250.

I think Blu-ray will be hard to dismiss because of the higher capacity for data. HD-DVD has a cool interface. Hybrid players will help us thru the war. I think you will see players for 300-400 bucks this next Xmas.

Once you have seen a well encoded Blu-ray disc, you can't go back...

If you have an XBox, the add-on player is a great bargain at $200 with a free movie and remote. The net price is really about $150.


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

LG has talked about bringing out a "universal" player that will play both HD formats and will probably announce it at CES. There is already a chip on the market (Broadcom, maybe?) that supports this.


----------



## jlib (Nov 22, 2002)

SHOMan said:


> ...Warner is coming out with a Total HD disc that uses double-sided media. One side Blu-ray, one side HD-DVD...


Just to be a stickler, it is an actual hybrid disk, not simply double sided:"Both Blu-ray and HD DVD use 405nm wavelength laser to read data from the recordable media of the discs. However, the data layer of the Blu-ray discs is located 0.1mm from the disks surface, whereas the HD-DVD data layer resides 0.6mm deep from the disks surface. Warners engineers plan to create a disc with a Blu-ray top layer that works like a two-way mirror: it should reflect just enough blue light for a Blu-ray player to read, but it should also let enough light through for HD-DVD players to ignore the Blu-ray recording and find a second HD-DVD layer beneath, it was reported earlier. Theoretically, triple-layer DVDs can be created too, if DVD layer is located on the other side to the Blu-ray and HD DVD layers."​


----------



## gio1269 (Jul 27, 2006)

Are Blu-Ray or HD DVD even worth it on a 42" 720p display?

Every single HD/Tech Junkie I has spoke with says 1080p is not really needed on displays under 55" unless you are sitting like 5ft away.

I was told that on smaller screens, the higher resolution will not really be noticed.

My close friend gave me an analogy like this:

Say you have a 5x7 photo taken with a 7.0 MP camera. The picture looks great at that size. But if you blow it up, it will lose detail.

Now take a 10MP camera and at the 5x7 size, 99% of people cannot tell the difference.

This is basically why I bought my 720p Plasma earlier in the year and did not wait for a 1080P one. I won't go bigger than 42" anyways so 1080p DVD might be overkill.

Now they said it might help with sports programs. I was told 720p is better than 1080i for fast motions like you mentioned about CSI. So a 1080p would give me the highest resolution for sports. But again, on a 42" set the display is not large enough to make a big difference to the eye.

Now I seen BR on a 65" display and it's stunning!! Also say it on a 40" LCD and the picture looked nice, but it did not seem any better than the HD content from OTA here in 720p.

Now I am just a newbie o these things and my eyes might not be as trained as others here.

But I have a very hard time complaining about my picture on my Panny with OTA HD. It's more than I could ever want after calibrating the set.

Maybe in a few yrs when the format war is over and these things are around $350 I will jump on one. I was told that these will play CD better to than most decent CD players from 5-6 yrs ago. So that's one less thing to have.

My main goal in a Blu-Ray or HD DVD recorder! This way I can recored HD shows to HD and will have an excuse to get a HD camcorder as well.


----------



## Cmmsh (Jan 2, 2007)

SHOMan said:


> If you have an XBox, the add-on player is a great bargain at $200 with a free movie and remote. The net price is really about $150.


ShoMan, explain this to me a little more, and tell me where I can get it. Sounds great. I am very interested. Thanks.


----------



## Billy66 (Dec 15, 2003)

Yes Shoman, I'm listening to that too.

Also, my Xbox360 has trouble with burned discs, would this add on play normal DVD's too? Is it better with burned discs? Specifically DL +r?

Thanks, I think I should have it!


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

jlib said:


> Just to be a stickler, it is an actual hybrid disk, not simply double sided:"Both Blu-ray and HD DVD use 405nm wavelength laser to read data from the recordable media of the discs. However, the data layer of the Blu-ray discs is located 0.1mm from the disks surface, whereas the HD-DVD data layer resides 0.6mm deep from the disks surface. Warners engineers plan to create a disc with a Blu-ray top layer that works like a two-way mirror: it should reflect just enough blue light for a Blu-ray player to read, but it should also let enough light through for HD-DVD players to ignore the Blu-ray recording and find a second HD-DVD layer beneath, it was reported earlier. Theoretically, triple-layer DVDs can be created too, if DVD layer is located on the other side to the Blu-ray and HD DVD layers."​


jlib, thanks for the clarification. The articles I read did not contain the technical details and apparently used the term double sided instead of dual layer.


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

gio1269 said:


> Are Blu-Ray or HD DVD even worth it on a 42" 720p display?
> 
> Every single HD/Tech Junkie I has spoke with says 1080p is not really needed on displays under 55" unless you are sitting like 5ft away.


Well, everyone has an opinion, and I respect the thought process behind the infomation you have received with respect to 720p vs 1080p.

That said, I think most people will tell you that 720p is fine because they don't have 1080p. I couldn't wait any longer (18 months ago), and that is the only reason I have 720p. I would buy 1080p no matter what size now, as this will be the standard within a couple of years, and YES IMHO, you can see the difference on a smaller screen.

There are other issues to consider with 1080p sets, such as the fact that SD source material may look worse than on a 720p. Only a few 1080p sets accept 1080p input, the rest deinterlace 1080i to 1080p. The only devices that output in true 1080p today are the new HD and Blu-ray players.

I think you have made an excellent choice with the Panny, and I wouldn't give it another thought until you get the HD player. You will SO TOTALLY be able to see the difference between standard DVD and HD DVD.

Oh, BTW, I have Nikon D200 10.2mp digital, and all I ever hear is how good the pictures are compared to 5 or 6 mp cameras. This is from viewing my 4x6 prints. Everytime, it's "WOW, that is so sharp compared to my xyz camera" Unless your vision is impaired, don't underestimate what more data can do.

In any event, you have a great set and the bottom line is if looks good to you, then what else matters?


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

Cmmsh said:


> ShoMan, explain this to me a little more, and tell me where I can get it. Sounds great. I am very interested. Thanks.


The XBOX 360 HD-DVD Add-on player can be had at EBGAMES.COM right now for $200. You can probably find one around town, but these are selling out just about as fast as the new game consoles are. It is a separate drive, plugs into the USB port on the back, and has the mounting bracket for the wireless connector so you don't have to plug anything into the front. It comes with a remote control and a copy of King Kong on HD-DVD. The movie is stunning in terms of sound and picture.

Installation is easy, it comes with a little disc, and you don't need additional cables, as it dumps the video and audio via USB and then out of the XBOX 360 into your system. The only downside is that Microsoft does not yet have a HDMI cable for the XBOX, but the word is that this will change soon, as the player is capable of 1080p output. If you don't have 1080p set, this is a non-issue. The video is just fine over component video.

Oh, just realized I forgot about the SOUND!!! High bitrate or uncompressed audio tracks make my system sound like never before.

Netflix will allow you to specify the HD format(s) you have, and if a movie is available in that format, you get the HD disc without additional charge. We may never go to the movie theater again.

So, run down and pick one up. If you don't like it, you can probably get rid of it real easy.

Have fun!


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

Billy66 said:


> Yes Shoman, I'm listening to that too.
> 
> Also, my Xbox360 has trouble with burned discs, would this add on play normal DVD's too? Is it better with burned discs? Specifically DL +r?
> 
> Thanks, I think I should have it!


Billy66, let me know if my previous post did not answer your general questions.

With regard to the DL+R discs, I am currently watching a backup of "Snakes on a plane" on Verbatim DL+R disc in the HD-DVD add-on. Works fine, but it also works fine in the standard drive.

What brand of media are you using? I only use Verbatim for DL backups, because nothing else I have used worked consistantly across different players and computers. I have found that plain old DVD-ROM drives can't read my DL backups, but the set top players seem to do fine. Newegg has the best deals on the Verbatim, I have been getting them for less that $1.50 per disc after rebates.

My 360 is fairly recent, perhaps they have changed the standard internal drive?

The other cool thing is that I understand that this thing works on computers as well, but haven't tried that yet.

Hope this helps. With any luck, you could be watching HD-DVD before the weekend is over!


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

SHOMan said:


> Oh, BTW, I have Nikon D200 10.2mp digital, and all I ever hear is how good the pictures are compared to 5 or 6 mp cameras. This is from viewing my 4x6 prints. Everytime, it's "WOW, that is so sharp compared to my xyz camera"


Being somewhat new to HD technology, I thought you knew what you were talking about -- until you made the above statement. I DO know about photography, and you CANNOT see a difference in sharpness between 10mp or 6mp in a 4X6 print. There are several factors that determine sharpness in a photo, the quality of the lens, in-camera sharpening, post-processing -- all more important and relevant than sensor resolution when viewing a 4X6 print. Similarly, at certain screen sizes and viewing distance, HD resolution is somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

skanter said:


> Being somewhat new to HD technology, I thought you knew what you were talking about -- until you made the above statement. I DO know about photography, and you CANNOT see a difference in sharpness between 10mp or 6mp in a 4X6 print. There are several factors that determine sharpness in a photo, the quality of the lens, in-camera sharpening, post-processing -- all more important and relevant than sensor resolution when viewing a 4X6 print. Similarly, at certain screen sizes and viewing distance, HD resolution is somewhat irrelevant.


Skanter, please forgive. I was lazy in adding the bit in about the D200. You are correct about the additional factors that determine image quality, not to mention the variables involved in printing and the subjective nature of a print in general. 
Then we have the variable of human vision to consider.

If you want to keep it just about the math, then I stand corrected. I was trying to keep the response at the same level of simplicity as asked. IMHO, more data is clearly one of the reasons my 4x6 prints looks as good as they do.

I do think I know what I am talking about with respect to my postings and my own experiences of video quality on a variety of equipment. I do believe the gentleman with the 42" screen would clearly see the difference. I agree, at certain screen sizes and viewing distance, HD resolution is *somewhat* irrelevant, because most people aren't as fussy about it as I am.

I see you are in NYC. You must have some fantastic stores that will allow you to see the best of the best. Have you been out to see the new generation of smaller (<32 inch) 1080p sets? These things are RAZOR sharp. Clearly better than the previous generation of 720p lcds.

I feel I do know a bit about HD technology, and certainly have a lot to learn.

But I don't get why you had to throw the insult, I am not typing this stuff in because I need attention. I was trying to help the guys.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

SHOMan said:


> Skanter, please forgive. I was lazy in adding the bit in about the D200. You are correct about the additional factors that determine image quality, not to mention the variables involved in printing and the subjective nature of a print in general.
> Then we have the variable of human vision to consider.
> 
> If you want to keep it just about the math, then I stand corrected. I was trying to keep the response at the same level of simplicity as asked. IMHO, more data is clearly one of the reasons my 4x6 prints looks as good as they do.
> ...


Sorry, I didn't mean it to be an insult -- just that I believed your credibility about the HD was very much compromised when you made the statement about the 4X6 print.

As I've said before, in any type of display, I believe resolution to be only one of the factors. In choosing a camera, there are several factors to consider besides resolution, and the same goes for HD dispalys. There are plenty of crappy 10mp cameras out there, some great 6mp cameras.

I disagree that one can see the difference between 720P/1080P or 1081i/1080P on small displays or at more than very close viewing distance. I believe my Panny 42" 9UK is as sharp as my eyes can see at my 8-9' viewing distance. At this size and distance, I don't believe a 1080P display would offer any advantage. Much larger displays at closer viewing distances might, however. But, other factors such as contrast ratio, color rendition, LCD vs. plasma might be as revevant to overall PQ as is resolution.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Too bad TiVo's can't do anything with HD-DVD or Blu-ray. 



Leila said:


> are all movies on HBO HD channel 70 actually high-definition? I've noticed that
> some movies look really bad... like they do on TNT HD's "fake" high-definition movies...
> 
> Or am I just imagining it?
> ...


In case anyone's forgotten, that's the question posed in the thread.

phox


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

skanter said:


> I disagree that one can see the difference between 720P/1080P or 1081i/1080P on small displays or at more than very close viewing distance. I believe my Panny 42" 9UK is as sharp as my eyes can see at my 8-9' viewing distance. At this size and distance, I don't believe a 1080P display would offer any advantage. Much larger displays at closer viewing distances might, however. But, other factors such as contrast ratio, color rendition, LCD vs. plasma might be as revevant to overall PQ as is resolution.


Skanter, the original point was that the 1080p source material would look better on a 720p display than standard DVD 480p, or even up-converted DVD. If you go buy the the HD-DVD or Blu-ray, you WILL see the difference, regardless of theory.

The bottom line about the 1080p sets was that the market is headed that way, and folks considering new sets and trying to decide between 720p and 1080p should consider opting for 1080p for the long run if cost not the main issue.

So, we can agree to disagree. No harm done except off topic.

PM me if you wish to respond.


----------



## Billy66 (Dec 15, 2003)

phox_mulder said:


> Too bad TiVo's can't do anything with HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
> 
> phox


It really is a shame that the ancillary features TiVo pushes are simply blown away by the Xbox.

DVD integration-Great on Xbox, unsuccessful on TiVo
Photos, Music, Videos--Sweet on Xbox, great streaming, great media player. Stinks on TiVo
DL Content--TV shows, movies and games available now.

I'm not concerned about the TiVo learning to do these things or play games, I'm one step away from my Xbox being able to record my TV.


----------



## gio1269 (Jul 27, 2006)

SHOMan said:


> Well, everyone has an opinion, and I respect the thought process behind the infomation you have received with respect to 720p vs 1080p.
> 
> That said, I think most people will tell you that 720p is fine because they don't have 1080p. I couldn't wait any longer (18 months ago), and that is the only reason I have 720p. I would buy 1080p no matter what size now, as this will be the standard within a couple of years, and YES IMHO, you can see the difference on a smaller screen.
> 
> ...


Thanks! My buddy has a 1080p DLP and the regular SD from D* looks sooo crappy it's not even funny! Watching SD most of the time due to most TV is NOT HD, I would be pissed spending that type of money.

I ma very happy with my Panny. I bought it in March when my 27" Toshiba died and I needed a new TV and the wife was ready to go HD.

I ried his Blu-Ray DVD player today on my TV and yes, it much better than any DVD now and much better than the up converted DVD from my Samsung.

But IMHO, it did not look that much better than the OTA HD content I get now.
I think on smaller screens it does not make a difference to my eyes. Still better than DVD now so, when they come down I will get one and which ever format wins.

On his 1080P 55" DLP and his 90" DLP Projection, the pictures looked mind blowing.

At a local store on a 30 something inch LCD it looked nice, but again not really better than OTA HD.

Maybe just my eyes though.

I just wish one format would take over so we can all just move on....


----------



## stevel (Aug 23, 2000)

I have a Sony KDS-R60XBR1, ISF- calibrated. Most DirecTV HD looks superb on this set, as does a lot of DirecTV SD to my surprise. Many HDTV sets do a very poor job of presenting SD. I've been extremely pleased with the combination.

Might Blu-Ray or HD-DVD be even better? Perhaps. But to date there's nothing out on those formats I'd want to watch (except for Serenity and I have that in HD already.)


----------



## nash0r (Nov 19, 2002)

Here's a simple test. I have some of Sopranos Season 6 on my HDTivo, recorded from HBO in HD when originally broadcast.

I also own the Season 6 HD DVD boxset. There is a clear difference between the two. It is not as huge a gap as going from standard def to high def, but the HD DVD picture is considerably better.

DTV's "HD" channels are overcompressed and downressed, plain and simple. They still look quite good, but once you get a taste of what really good HD can look like (HD DVD or Blu Ray), it kind of sours the taste of "HD Lite" that DTV pumps out. Now that I've spent some time with HD DVD, I can spot a lot more compression artifacts on channels like Discovery HD.

Not to mention the aspect ratio mangling for movies that other posters have mentioned...


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

mr.unnatural said:


> Regardless of the source used, DTV's HD channels are compressed versions of HD (or upconverted non-HD) programming that fall short of true HD. True HD is 1920x1080i (or 1080p) resolution whereas DTV broadcasts their HD channels in 1280x1088i. Most OTA broadcasters transmit in 1920x1080i, although some only transmit in 1280x720p, most notably Fox affiliates.





mr.unnatural said:


> ...My point was mainly to point out that OTA broadcasts are not compressed and DTV broadcasts are...


You are confusing compression with format resolution. DTV may rescale to a lower H rez, but that has nothing to do with compression, except for the fact that the reason they do that in the first place is so transport stream compression (which happens much later) will not artifact as much at decode as it would without the rescale. Two completely different things.

Also, resolution format is not in any way an accurate indicator of perceived resolution and can not therefore be compared directly by a simple pixel count with any sort of relationship to whether one is inferior or superior to the other, especially comparing 720p to 1080i, and especially when considering real-world conditions typically limit the potential resolution to much less than the potential of 1920x1080, or even 1280x1080.

Comparing the formats by number is a fool's errand. 1080i and 720p are generally considered by technical folks to have essentially the same perceived resolution. Depending on dynamic content, one will slightly outperform the other, and vice versa, at any given moment. Neither is clearly superior by any measure or by any subjective appraisal.

Most 1920x1080 video comes from 1440x1080 sources, and most lenses and production techniques only rarely reach even that level of true resolution, so having a resolution format with a potential higher than that buys you absolutely nothing, other than overhead and bandwidth problems.

The fact that both 720p and 1080i are viable choices for program producers is not because one is terrific and the other is inferior to that, but because each has its own strengths and makes more sense in different applications, just like premium gas makes better sense in one vehicle and diesel makes more sense in another. Otherwise there would be but one format. FOX, ABC, and ESPN are not about to choose a format that might be inferior, but they did choose the format that made the most sense for their typical content.

And ATSC OTA broadcasts, every single one of them, are very much indeed compressed. 1080i is typically compressed at a 83:1 ratio while 720p is typically compressed at a 77:1 ratio. HD as delivered (as well as all other digital television) depends entirely upon MPEG compression to be able to be delivered to the viewer, or even originally to the broadcaster. Without it there is not enough efficiency or bandwidth available. Uncompressed HD (1080p/60) has a bit rate of about 3 Gb/s, which without compression will not exactly format well into a 19.38 Mb/s transport stream.

The only uncompressed HD anyone ever sees is seen only by the original video editor or telecine operator, if even then. HD video emerging from a studio HD camera is already compressed before we engineers even get a chance to see it. I am willing to bet that no one on this forum has probably ever seen uncompressed HD.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

nash0r said:


> Here's a simple test. I have some of Sopranos Season 6 on my HDTivo, recorded from HBO in HD when originally broadcast.
> 
> I also own the Season 6 HD DVD boxset. There is a clear difference between the two. It is not as huge a gap as going from standard def to high def, but the HD DVD picture is considerably better.


How do you receive HBO content that Tivo recorded?

What size and type of monitor, what viewing distance?


----------



## George Cifranci (Jan 30, 2003)

http://www.hdtvgalaxy.com/whatson.php

Shows what format the shows on the channels like HBO HD are.

For example today...

Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace PG (5:30pm, 1080i & DD5.1)
Rome TV-14 (8:00pm, 1080i & DD5.1)
Rome TV-14 (9:00pm, 1080i & DD5.1)
The Family Stone PG13 (11:00pm, 1080i & DD5.1)


----------



## nash0r (Nov 19, 2002)

skanter said:


> How do you receive HBO content that Tivo recorded?
> 
> What size and type of monitor, what viewing distance?


Not sure what you mean by your first question. As far as the display, it's a 61" 1080p Samsung DLP from 2005. I sit about 11 feet away.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

nash0r said:


> Not sure what you mean by your first question. As far as the display, it's a 61" 1080p Samsung DLP from 2005. I sit about 11 feet away.


Cable, OTA?


----------



## jhimmel (Dec 27, 2002)

skanter said:


> Cable, OTA?


How could he receive HBO HD "OTA"? I never heard of that.
My guess, since this is the "DirecTV HDTV TiVo Powered PVRs" forum, that he got it from DTV with a HR10-250. But true, he -could- be using an S3 with cable or FiOS.


----------



## skanter (May 28, 2003)

jhimmel said:


> How could he receive HBO HD "OTA"? I never heard of that.
> My guess, since this is the "DirecTV HDTV TiVo Powered PVRs" forum, that he got it from DTV with a HR10-250. But true, he -could- be using an S3 with cable or FiOS.


My mistake -- I meant DirecTV or cablecard, not OTA.


----------



## nash0r (Nov 19, 2002)

Yeah, sorry - an HR10-250. That's what I mean by HDTivo. I guess that can mean a Series 3, too, these days. But it's not fair to compare cable HBO HD and HD DVD and then ***** about DirecTV


----------



## jor-el (May 24, 2002)

SHOMan said:


> Oh, BTW, I have Nikon D200 10.2mp digital, and all I ever hear is how good the pictures are compared to 5 or 6 mp cameras. This is from viewing my 4x6 prints. Everytime, it's "WOW, that is so sharp compared to my xyz camera" Unless your vision is impaired, don't underestimate what more data can do.


Compared to a D100 using the same lens, it's unlikely anyone could see a difference.

But compared to P&S digicam with a sensor much much smaller than the APC sized one in the D200, with a lens that is the size of a finger, yeah, there is quite a difference, most notably in the noise levels and the depth of field. 
---

Back on topic, there was a very noticable improvement for me going from a 2001 "1080i" RPTV to a current 1080p dlp. Duh.

If you're only watching TV, it probably doesn't get you much over 720p. Fox/ABC/ESPN are 720. (and for me, little on 1080i CBS broadcast in HD that is worth watching) But if you're hooking up computer devices (roku?) or a hddvd/bluray/ps3, I think there is gain in the much higher pixel count.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

SHOMan said:


> ...I would buy 1080p no matter what size now, as this will be the standard within a couple of years, and YES IMHO, you can see the difference on a smaller screen.
> 
> There are other issues to consider with 1080p sets, such as the fact that SD source material may look worse than on a 720p...


Now that they are fairly equivalent in price, I would definitely recommend a 1080p set, and one of the reasons (other than those you stated) is because as ironic as it might seem, SD content actually looks better on them than on 720 or 768 sets. HD content is improved from the 768 Sony LCDs, for instance, moving up to the 1080 SXRDs, but SD content seems to be improved even more, something I just was not expecting until I saw it with my own eyes. Fewer, smaller pixels seems to minimize the "silk-screen" effect, for one thing, even at recommended viewing distances.



SHOMan said:


> ...I have Nikon D200 10.2mp digital, and all I ever hear is how good the pictures are compared to 5 or 6 mp cameras. This is from viewing my 4x6 prints. Everytime, it's "WOW, that is so sharp compared to my xyz camera" Unless your vision is impaired, don't underestimate what more data can do...


That's a good point, but your example might not hold much water. It is just as important not to "OVER-estimate" what more data can do, because in many applications, more data buys you absolutely no improvement. Still cameras with more pixels (12 Mp vs. 6 Mp, for instance) have more detail, there is no question. But the improvement is negligible unless you are interested in blowing up a relatively-small part of the image to a large size. Otherwise, most of that data is completely wasted, because it is detail that is finer than the eye can even see. 12 Mp will also not provide any sharper detail than 6 Mp if you are using a cheap lens, so in that case more data is also irrelevant.

To apply your example to 1080 and viewing distance (sitting closer being the equivalent of blowing up a still photo) a 1080-native set will not allow 20/20 vision to render any more detail on your retina than a 768-native set will, providing you are sitting at the recommended distance (3 picture heights) or further away, which almost all viewing situations end up requiring in the real world, because "perfect" human foveal vision can only discern no more than 1/60th of a degree of arc, which was what the ATSC HD formats were designed upon in the first place. So, in that instance the extra data is also wasted. Sit closer than that, though, and you will begin to see the pixel structure on a 768-native set (but not on a 1080p set), so more data might be an improvement if you like your nose up against the glass.

I won't go so far as to say that 1080p is hype compared to 768, because it really does look better, even on non-1080 material, and even at further than the recommended viewing distances. But the reasons are due to many and varied incremental improvements in display technology from older 768 and 720 sets, and 1080p itself is only a minor contributor, making the 1080p factor by itself one more example of an over-estimation of what "more data can do".


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

Boy, I sure wish I had been more awake when I tossed in that last bit about my D200. 

If you read back in the posts, you will see that I was taken to task for my gross over-simplification with respect to why my 4x6 prints look so good. It was a bad call to toss that over the fence.


----------



## SHOMan (Jun 2, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> I won't go so far as to say that 1080p is hype compared to 768, because it really does look better, even on non-1080 material, and even at further than the recommended viewing distances. But the reasons are due to many and varied incremental improvements in display technology from older 768 and 720 sets, and 1080p itself is only a minor contributor, making the 1080p factor by itself one more example of an over-estimation of what "more data can do".


Good points. So, we can agree that more data is good, provided that the supporting technology is capaple of processing and rendering it.


----------



## cp1966 (Feb 28, 2004)

stevel said:


> I have a Sony KDS-R60XBR1, ISF- calibrated. Most DirecTV HD looks superb on this set, as does a lot of DirecTV SD to my surprise. Many HDTV sets do a very poor job of presenting SD. I've been extremely pleased with the combination.
> 
> Might Blu-Ray or HD-DVD be even better? Perhaps. But to date there's nothing out on those formats I'd want to watch (except for Serenity and I have that in HD already.)


I have the same TV, but mine has not been ISF calibrated yet. I have the HR10-250, and ESPN HD looks great, as well as Discovery. The HBO HD movies have been so-so, at least the ones I watched. IT IS MY OPINION that the local PBS station, channel 2.1 in Minneapolis, reveals the best HD content. It is absoluley stellar. That is my opinion, which is only subjective.

I have not watched a HD or BR DVD yet, my wife would have my head if I came home with a new player. I will have to wait till the prices come down a little bit more.


----------



## ike (Feb 26, 2002)

SHOMan said:


> Good points. So, we can agree that more data is good, provided that the supporting technology is capaple of processing and rendering it.


From some of the reviews that I've read recently, a 1080p set CAN look worse than a 720p set when displaying SD programming because it's more difficult for the video scaler.


----------

