1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

622 Video output discussion

Discussion in 'ViP612/622/722/722K DVR Support Forum' started by Unclejeff, Feb 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Unclejeff

    Unclejeff AllStar

    51
    0
    Mar 10, 2004
    Nice review. I have a question regarding the kind of signal (480p, 720p, etc.) Dish transmits HD channels. The native resolution of my NEC 50XM5 is 720p and this plasma already has an excellant scaler. If E* is transmitting in 480p then i would want the 622 to send the signal along in 480p and let my NEC do the rest of the work.
     
  2. Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    This feature is commonly referred to as Native Pass through and currently is not supported in the 622.
     
  3. Unclejeff

    Unclejeff AllStar

    51
    0
    Mar 10, 2004
    Okay, if Native Pass through is not supported in the 622, can you tell me what format the signal is coming into the box? I think I would then set the box to send along that signal and then let my own hardware do the rest. I see from the review that the 622 can send it out at 480i which I am told would be good for my system but if the signal comes in at 720i then I would not want to be changing the signal more than necessary. I know my Dish 811 does not release the signal in 480i. Perhaps there is no single answer and the signal comes in according to how the movie was shot in the first place?
     
  4. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    As far as I am aware, the signals coming into the receiver are whatever format the broadcaster is sending..

    So, SD channels come in at 480i. HD channels may be 720p or 1080i depending on the channel.

    This is why the native pass-through would be good for those of us who want to let our TVs handle the signal in its native form.

    Otherwise, no matter what you select on your box, you are converting something. The only work-around at the moment, would be to manually change your settings on a per-channel basis... but that's more work than most of us want to do... so we compare them and leave it set at whatever looks the best, or at least the best for what we watch most of the time.
     
  5. Unclejeff

    Unclejeff AllStar

    51
    0
    Mar 10, 2004
    Yes, this is pretty much what I am doing now. I have things set for HD channels and I use the zoom feature for SD. I don't suppose the 622 can have settings for SD and alternate settings when a HD picture comes in....?
     
  6. Mar 2, 2006 #6 of 17
    Unclejeff

    Unclejeff AllStar

    51
    0
    Mar 10, 2004
    The lack of Native Resolution-passthru is a real bummer. One would hope that this is a simple problem to fix. Some of us would prefer E* to be more of a delivery-man and not an interpretor.
     
  7. Mar 2, 2006 #7 of 17
    Ron Barry

    Ron Barry 622 Tips & Trick Keeper

    9,881
    0
    Dec 10, 2002
    UncleJeff,

    The fact that this feature is not in the 942, 921, 811 and 211 and is suggested with each new HD receiver, I am not sure how easy this feature is to implment. Bummer yes.. but I would personally place it in the feature bucket not the bug bucket.

    All we can do is keep asking for it and hopefully the team will see the benefit of such a feature. It is on my list for highly desirable features.
     
  8. Mar 2, 2006 #8 of 17
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,609
    380
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I suppose there could be some unknown technical reason... but logic (to me anyway) says that the current configuration (always convert every signal to something else) is the more difficult implementation, so they are already doing the hardest part. It seems, on the surface anyway, that a pass-through option would be a simple software selection to bypass their up/downconversion paths.

    I guess it could be that they have the hardware set to up/downconvert no matter what and the software just selects which path... and if that's the case, then a new board design would be required to implement the pass-through feature.

    Depends on what they were thinking when they designed these receivers.
     
  9. Mar 2, 2006 #9 of 17
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,018
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    I think the hardware takes the signal and has to manipulate it no matter what to send it to the output port, so as I see it, there will never truly be pass through, it will always be touched by the reciever and its software controls.. I don't see anyway around it, it would take a separate set of outputs as I see it..
     
  10. LtMunst

    LtMunst Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    3
    Aug 24, 2005
    There might be a hardware limitation to passing a signal resolution that is different from one of the receiver's 4 standards (480i,480p,720p,1080i). For 1080i, the output drivers want to send 1920x1080i regardless of whether the signal comes in at 1280x1080i. The main question is whether the output drivers can be updated to send out non-standard resolutions or whether the output hardware can only do the 4 standards.

    At the very least, though, there should be no reason the receiver cannot pass through the signal at the closest standard resolution. If it gets any 1080i signal, it passes 1920x1080i. If it gets any 720p signal, it passes 1280x720p...etc. Basically a hybrid passthru, switching to one of the 4 standard resolutions on the fly but not necessarily passing the signal exactly as it came down off the SAT.
     
  11. DP1

    DP1 Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 15, 2002
    Well it's not like there hasnt been other brands of HD receivers that have a native pass through option. So it can be designed that way if the maker wanted to.

    Obviously Dish hasnt ever felt the need.

    I've never lost any sleep over not having an HD receiver with that feature. And I've had a number of different ones. I'm not even sure I'd select that option in the menu even if it were made available. I suppose it would depend in part on the particular display as to for example how quickly and "seamlessly" it could re-sync every time you were simply channel surfing over various channels that were native 720p/1080i. Like with the Big 4 Networks where theres 2 of each. Or even more lower resolution options if you're surfing the OTA sub-channels too.

    Not to say the feature shouldnt be included though just in principle for those that already know they'd use it.
     
  12. LtMunst

    LtMunst Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    3
    Aug 24, 2005
    The main reason I want it is to avoid unnecessary conversions. I have my unit set to 1080i. My LCD TV is 720p native. If a channel is set to 720p the receiver will upconvert to 1080i followed by a downconvert from the TV. These are 2 steps that should not have to be done. Each conversions results in some loss of PQ (in theory).

    The reason I have the receiver at 1080i is because my TV downconverts to 720 better than the 942.

    Most would prefer their TV do whatever scaling is necessary since it is almost always better.
     
  13. DP1

    DP1 Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 15, 2002
    Yeah I understand that, Lt. I'm basically in the same boat. I have a 720p projector and I have all my HD source boxes set to 1080i output. Comcast HD DVR, Dish 211, BEV 6000, a couple D-VHS machines etc.

    But I got no beef the way 720p source material looks even with the boxes set that way. Be it Fox, ABC, ESPN's etc. Certainly if I was worried about it, particularly when watching 720p programming for a lengthy period of time.. like 2 or 3 hour ballgames, I'd take the few seconds to switch the output on the source box to 720p to have a straight shot for the duration (and then back again afterwards). Heck even for a one hour show.. why not? We're talking a few button presses here.. not re-wiring afterall. ;)

    I just dont bother.. not because I'm too lazy, but because it just doesnt matter to me. Now obviously if I said to myself, doggone it it just doesnt look as good as it should, that would be different. But I'm not going to worry about it just due to principle.

    Do you bother to switch the box to 720p if you're going to be watching that type programming for an extended period? I'm sure some people must if they're that worried about what the conversion process might be doing to the PQ.

    Guess if anything I'm more worried about what the PQ of a given program might look like not based on what resolution it is, or what the STB is doing.. but whats happening at the broadcast end. Not like theres any shortage of variance from that aspect. Variances enough in watching HD over the years that if something is ho hum it's ho hum and if it's killer it's killer to the point where no matter the resolution or what the STB is set to at a particular moment, it wouldnt make any appreciable difference in my mind.
     
  14. bobbyc03

    bobbyc03 Cool Member

    15
    0
    Jul 20, 2005
    Like others have mentioned, all the dish hd receivers do a great job of converting 720p to 1080i. However, they do a horrible job of converting 1080i to 720p.

    I too leave it set to 1080i, except when I watch 24 on Fox. That's my only favorite show and it makes me feel special when I watch it in 720p :)
    Bob C
     
  15. normang

    normang Icon

    1,018
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    It would be nice if 1080 were the standard, and then no conversion would ever be needed.. However, the chances of that are pretty nil....
     
  16. LtMunst

    LtMunst Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    3
    Aug 24, 2005
    Yeah, 1080i signals take on a "grainy" look when you let the 942 do the 720p downconvert.
     
  17. LtMunst

    LtMunst Hall Of Fame

    1,267
    3
    Aug 24, 2005
    Not sure about the 622, but the 942 has a nasty habit of locking up and rebooting about half the time you try and change output resolution. Those few seconds and a couple of button presses turn into 3 minutes of lost time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page