Popularity of Mt2 off air tuner?

[Hall]

Well you can report all the facts and by those facts 720p should be a better picture but on my HDTV Vizio's M550SV 240Hz 1080p,when I compare the PQ I see coming out of the VIP722k/wMT2 set to 1080i and I'm watching FOX or ABC locals in upconverted 1080i,then I compare the PQ to the pictures I'm seeing through my HDTV's built in OTA tuner watching FOX and ABC locals and the PQ through the MT2 is a cleaner/crisper PQ compared to what I see being broadcast locally in 720p on my HDTV.

Your TV will always convert ALL incoming signals to 1080p (except when it receives 1080p directly). So when you watch ABC or FOX's 720p, you're not seeing 720p on the display. Through the Dish receiver, it's first converted to 1080i. Then the TV itself converts it to 1080p. When you watch via OTA, it's converted from 720p to 1080p (by the TV itself).

In the end, we get it. You like what your 722k "with MT2" does. People can try and explain technical aspects, myself included, but I'll never tell someone that what their eyes see is wrong. Same if someone tells me that was I like is "wrong". They can say it, but it won't change my perception.

 

[SaltiDawg]

... People can try and explain technical aspects, myself included, but I'll never tell someone that what their eyes see is wrong. Same if someone tells me that was I like is "wrong". They can say it, but it won't change my perception.

Well said!

 

[TheKrell]

Try Googling Frame Rate.

Something you obviously failed to do yourself. I'll give you some help. Look at this PDF: http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a53/a_53-Part-4-2009.pdf and in particular P9, table 6.2. Tell us all what frame rate codes 7 and 8 are all about. It does not matter that 24Hz frame rates exist. It matters that 60Hz frame rates do also.

 

[SaltiDawg]

Something you obviously failed to do yourself. I'll give you some help. Look at this PDF: http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a53/a_53-Part-4-2009.pdf and in particular P9, table 6.2. Tell us all what frame rate codes 7 and 8 are all about. It does not matter that 24Hz frame rates exist. It matters that 60Hz frame rates do also.

What a terrible cite to support your lack of understanding of the term Frame Rate - a term that has meaning in both analog and digital broadcasting. Again, Google would allow you to stop defending a mistaken belief on your part. I only used 24 FPS as an example, but certainly 30 FPS and 60 FPS are also applicable.

Would you please define Frame Rate? Careful. lol

I'll drop this as I was simply trying to add to this discussion. If it matters to anyone, simply Google it and see for yourself.

 

[navychop]

OK. Look here and here.

1080 60i produces 30 full frames per second, as defined in ATSC standards. 720 60p produces 60 full frames per second.

I think we can all agree that what we'd really like to see is 1080 60p, which is not an ATSC standard but would be gangbusters for PQ, but cost twice the bandwidth. This can be done on Blu-ray, satellite or cable, but with today's technology we cannot fit 1080 60p (with acceptable PQ) into the 6 MHz/19.4 Mbps television broadcasting channel used in the US today. Not even with MPEG-4, which also is not part of the ATSC standard.

Interlacing only came into existence because early TVs needed a work around to produce the given resolution of the day, due to hardware limitations. If you freeze frame an interlaced picture that has motion in it, you will see an offset in every other display line (ignoring certain other processing).

But with various conversions, limited source capture (1440, anyone?), processing and transmission, etc etc, there simply is no single answer as to which is better. And as stated, if you have a 1080p set, everything fed to it will be displayed 1080p. Whether your 1080 TV can better convert a 720 source than say, a ViP receiver, is up in the air. There is no native pass thru on any current Dish receiver that I am aware of.

 

[SaltiDawg]

1080 60i produces 30 full frames per second, as defined in ATSC standards. 720 60p produces 60 full frames per second.

I think we can all agree that what we'd really like to see is 1080 60p, which is not an ATSC standard ...

1080i indeed has a frame rate of 30 frames per second. 720p can have 30 or 60 or 24 Frames per second.

1080p indeed is in the ATSC Standard table and can have a Frame Rate of either 24 or 30.

 

[navychop]

1080 30p yes for ATSC. Sadly, they did not think ahead far enough to include 1080 60p. Thankfully, there are other, non ATSC, methods that can use 1080 60p. We don't even have MPEG-4 as ATSC for OTA. I'd like to see it added, but it appears to me that local broadcasters are pretty much doing all they can to eliminate OTA. So it's moot.

Remember in the early days of talks about converting to ATSC? "Digital" was to bring us two way wonders. You could "click" on an actress dress and get info on it, including buying options. You could "click" on areas of the screen, or icons, and get background information, biographies and more. Etc, etc. The closest I've seen is on Dish: "Press Select now ....." It's a start.

I suppose the MT2 was the way to go, after all. I'm happy with my single OTA tuner in each of my ViP722s. There's so very little OTA that I actually watch. But I understand many, many people watch the main networks. They just don't do it OTA.

 

[Jhon69]

OK. Look here and here.

1080 60i produces 30 full frames per second, as defined in ATSC standards. 720 60p produces 60 full frames per second.

I think we can all agree that what we'd really like to see is 1080 60p, which is not an ATSC standard but would be gangbusters for PQ, but cost twice the bandwidth. This can be done on Blu-ray, satellite or cable, but with today's technology we cannot fit 1080 60p (with acceptable PQ) into the 6 MHz/19.4 Mbps television broadcasting channel used in the US today. Not even with MPEG-4, which also is not part of the ATSC standard.

Interlacing only came into existence because early TVs needed a work around to produce the given resolution of the day, due to hardware limitations. If you freeze frame an interlaced picture that has motion in it, you will see an offset in every other display line (ignoring certain other processing).

But with various conversions, limited source capture (1440, anyone?), processing and transmission, etc etc, there simply is no single answer as to which is better. And as stated, if you have a 1080p set, everything fed to it will be displayed 1080p. Whether your 1080 TV can better convert a 720 source than say, a ViP receiver, is up in the air. There is no native pass thru on any current Dish receiver that I am aware of.

I guess maybe that's why Vizio HDTVs are cheaper priced? because even though my HDTV says 1080p everything is not being upconverted to 1080p.

 

[SaltiDawg]

I guess maybe that's why Vizio HDTVs are cheaper priced? because even though my HDTV says 1080p everything is not being upconverted to 1080p.

If the native display resolution of your TV is 1080p, it must, by definition, display a 1080p signal. If the input to the TV is other then 1080p, it must upconvert that signal to 1080p in order to display it.

 

[Jhon69]

If the native display resolution of your TV is 1080p, it must, by definition, display a 1080p signal. If the input to the TV is other then 1080p, it must upconvert that signal to 1080p in order to display it.

It's the HDTV's System Information that is in conflict with that statement,like I said maybe this is why this Vizio M550SV LED-LCD HDTV was cheaper.

But when I watch a Blue Ray Movie the System Information screen reports the picture is 1080p.

Regular DVD's the SI says it is 1080i which makes me happy because I read where the maximum resolution on regular DVDs is only 720x480.I have my Blue Ray player set to HDMI Auto so the player and HDTV talk to each other then the HDTV selects the resolution or so it says in the Blue Ray player owner's manual.

When I watch on my 722k/wMT2 the SI says all are 1080i(that's the resolution I have selected in the HDTV setting).

 

[Hall]

The System Information screen is telling you the resolution that it's RECEIVING.

- A BD-player (with a BD disc) will output 1080p (when set that way).
- Your regular DVDs are being upconverted (by the BD player to 1080i), hence the output is 1080i.
- Your 722k, based on the setting you made in the menus, is set to output 1080i.

 

[SaltiDawg]

It's the HDTV's System Information that is in conflict with that statement,like I said maybe this is why this Vizio M550SV LED-LCD HDTV was cheaper.
... .

What you are seeing is the Input to your TV - 1080p from BD, 1080i from your Dish receiver, etc.

As I said, "If the native display resolution of your TV is 1080p, it must, by definition, display a 1080p signal. If the input to the TV is other then 1080p, it must upconvert that signal to 1080p in order to display it."

Has nothing to do with the brand.

 

[Jim5506]

1080p24 is a smaller file size that 1080i30, so the real barrier is that TV stations do not want to add the extra cost of an additional modulation AND there is no content available from almost any network that is 1080p24 (excellent for movies since there is no need for 3:2 conversion of frames - this is what Dishes 1080p is downloaded as).

The whole conversion to HD has been a political nightmare arranged by a committee of blind men.

They should have gone with a 1080p format of some type in the first place instead of 1080i30 - but they didn't ask me - did they ask anyone?

I think we got interlaced frames because the NTSC picture was interlaced and the TV manufacturers were reluctant to make such a sweeping change, but then again 720p60 was in the spec, so who knows what their thinking was.

One other thing - nearly all if not ALL digital displays today display the image in a type of progressive mode even if the input to the TV is interlaced, because LCD, DLP, plasma and other digital displays do not scan the picture onto the screen, they put it up as a complete frame all at once, then the next frame, then the next and so forth, it is more akin to the way motion picture projectors put one total frame up at a time, in a flash, but with virtually no blanking between frames. Not interlaced, but not really progressive either, the electronics assemble the total frame and flash it to the display all at once.

 

[Jhon69]

1080p24 is a smaller file size that 1080i30, so the real barrier is that TV stations do not want to add the extra cost of an additional modulation AND there is no content available from almost any network that is 1080p24 (excellent for movies since there is no need for 3:2 conversion of frames - this is what Dishes 1080p is downloaded as).

The whole conversion to HD has been a political nightmare arranged by a committee of blind men.

They should have gone with a 1080p format of some type in the first place instead of 1080i30 - but they didn't ask me - did they ask anyone?

I think we got interlaced frames because the NTSC picture was interlaced and the TV manufacturers were reluctant to make such a sweeping change, but then again 720p60 was in the spec, so who knows what their thinking was.

One other thing - nearly all if not ALL digital displays today display the image in a type of progressive mode even if the input to the TV is interlaced, because LCD, DLP, plasma and other digital displays do not scan the picture onto the screen, they put it up as a complete frame all at once, then the next frame, then the next and so forth, it is more akin to the way motion picture projectors put one total frame up at a time, in a flash, but with virtually no blanking between frames. Not interlaced, but not really progressive either, the electronics assemble the total frame and flash it to the display all at once.

So if the NAB would adopt what you say do you think there would be OTA antennas appearing all over the country?.

 

[TheKrell]

I think we got interlaced frames because the NTSC picture was interlaced and the TV manufacturers were reluctant to make such a sweeping change, but then again 720p60 was in the spec, so who knows what their thinking was.

That's an easy one. The bandwidth isn't there for 1080p60, without exceeding what's available within a single analog channel.

 

[navychop]

That's an easy one. The bandwidth isn't there for 1080p60, without exceeding what's available within a single analog channel.

Yet they could have prepared for the future by defining 1080 60p. Then, when MPEG-whatever comes out, it might be able to compress twice as good as MPEG-4, thereby allowing such broadcasts in 6 MHz. But alas, as I noted before, I think it's moot. Broadcast TV seems to be slicing it's own throat.