Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Whats NOT in 4.01


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
89 replies to this topic

#51 OFFLINE   lakebum431

lakebum431

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 615 posts
Joined: Jun 30, 2005

Posted 26 March 2007 - 08:33 PM

How do you do a "HDMI Reset"?

thanks!


Menu 6, 3, Analysis, HDMI Test, Reset HDMI

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#52 OFFLINE   langlin

langlin

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 369 posts
Joined: Apr 08, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 08:39 AM

Remote capability has been mentioned. I think it was mentioned in the last Tech Chat, but I would consider them mutually exclusive. If I recall, I could be remembering wrong, they were mentioned at different times.

Either way.. Neither was was ever indicated to be in this release.


I agree it was not to be part of this release.

Actually Dish does "have" this capability with partners AT&T and Yahoo in select AT&T markets called "AT&T Homezone with AT&T/Dish Network Service"

http://www.att.com/g...eneral?pid=7910
Sending pictures through the air is impossible, Television will never work!

Leon
Dish VIP722K
SW L6.62 Sat 1000 and 500 61.5/110/119/129
AbsoluteHD
Monitor Toshiba TW65x81 Component and Samsung HL-T7288W
Other Dish VIP612 SW L6.09

#53 OFFLINE   Mr.72

Mr.72

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 564 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 08:48 AM

As a CRT front projection user I really miss pass-through since there is no scaling done.


Not really.

It all depends on the format that's coming into the TV. The TV requires a certain format (sync rate, number of scan lines, etc.), even if you are using component video input, in order to be able to display the picture correctly. It's even worse for HDMI. So the 622 or whatever box has to provide the TV with some reasonably-standard format picture. It would be foolish to do anything but regular ATSC-compliant HD formats that are in common use.

The problem is that many channels are likely NOT sent to the 622 in one of these ATSC-compliant HD formats.

Let's just talk about maybe IFC which is horrid looking on Dish. This is a signal that comes from the content provider (IFC) as a regular 480i signal, 640x480 pixels @ 30 Hz. Dish Network resamples that obviously at something more like 320x240 pixels @ 8 frames per second in order to cut the bandwidth requirement by a huge amount. So "native pass thru" would do what? Pass this incompatible format to the TV? My TV would not display it. Instead the 622 needs to reconstruct this into an ATSC-compliant signal, in this case the closest match would be 480i. Then your TV can display it.

I think it would just be easier to put a 1080i/720p "mode" button on the remote and allow it to switch while you are watching a channel. Otherwise they are going to have to just program the thing to switch to 480i on SD channels, and on HD channels try and detect whether it is a progressive-scan source or interlaced and either switch to 1080i or 720p but in either case it will be scaled because even 720p or 1080i original content will be changed to something other than the original format for transport between Dish's sat transmitter and the 622, and you need the 622 to convert it yet again so you can see it.

I don't think "native pass thru" is a great idea and in fact it is one major cause of pain on the D* HD-DVR. But I do think a button on the remote to switch from 720p to 1080i is a great idea.
Sling-enabled Hopper, Joey, RokuXD, coupla HDTVs, a real old DD5.1 receiver and a 1963 Fisher tube hifi

#54 OFFLINE   PhantomOG

PhantomOG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 183 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 09:02 AM

I don't think "native pass thru" is a great idea ...



The reason I would like a native pass-thru option is because of the quirky nature of my TV. I have an old 4x3 CRT HDTV. It accepts and displays a 1080i picture in a widescreen format. This means the scan lines are compressed into the 16x9 region on my screen. Unfortunately, this widescreen compression happens automatically (with no user override option) with ANY signal present above 480i/p. This means my HD channels are displayed fine and with the correct aspect ration, however, my SD channels are also compressed vertically. This forces me to use the S-video connection for SD and the component for HD and 2 different inputs on my TV.

If the 622 output the SD channels in their native resolution, I wouldn't have to use a separate connection/input on my TV. Every time I switch between an HD channel and an SD channel or vice versa, I must also select a different input on my TV. Quite annoying.

I know, I know, buy a new TV!!! :sure:

#55 OFFLINE   Mr.72

Mr.72

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 564 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 09:09 AM

what you are asking for is not native pass thru. you are asking for the box to switch to 480i when viewing a SD channel.

I don't think that's a bad idea at all. But it's not native pass-thru.

Maybe my mode button on the remote would cycle from 480i->480p->720p->1080i.
Sling-enabled Hopper, Joey, RokuXD, coupla HDTVs, a real old DD5.1 receiver and a 1963 Fisher tube hifi

#56 OFFLINE   PhantomOG

PhantomOG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 183 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 09:36 AM

what you are asking for is not native pass thru. you are asking for the box to switch to 480i when viewing a SD channel.


Ok, you're right. I want my HD channels in HD resolution (1080i/720p), and my SD channels in SD resolution (480i/p) WITHOUT having to make/press any selections/buttons etc. That would make me very happy! :P

#57 OFFLINE   Larry Caldwell

Larry Caldwell

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Apr 04, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 10:22 AM

Let's just talk about maybe IFC which is horrid looking on Dish. This is a signal that comes from the content provider (IFC) as a regular 480i signal, 640x480 pixels @ 30 Hz. Dish Network resamples that obviously at something more like 320x240 pixels @ 8 frames per second in order to cut the bandwidth requirement by a huge amount. So "native pass thru" would do what? Pass this incompatible format to the TV? My TV would not display it. Instead the 622 needs to reconstruct this into an ATSC-compliant signal, in this case the closest match would be 480i. Then your TV can display it.


That's not at all how MPEG compression works. First, and unrelated to the compression, NTSC resolution (480i) is 640 x 240 at 30 hz. The picture is interlaced and scans every other line in alternation, so the signal ends up 640 x 480 at 60 hz. Only half of the picture is drawn with each scan. NTSC displays 60 frames per second, but half of each frame is the same as the preceding frame.

MPEG of any variety is a lossy compression scheme, saving bandwidth by discarding data. To compensate for this, the receiver buffer holds the last frame, current frame and next frame, and can use adjacent frames to reconstruct the current frame. This allows the encoder to discard any pixel that doesn't change, and only transmit the pixels that change. This allows the amount of data in each frame to vary widely. An entirely new frame requires a lot of data, a static picture requires very little.

Sometimes the encoder guesses wrong and discards data that can't be reconstructed by the receiver, or perhaps the information never existed in the first place. A smart receiver can do a great job of compensating for this, like the Faroudja chip that de-interlaces DVDs and puts out an HD signal. You are seeing data that was never on the DVD, re-created by some very clever circuitry and programming. The 622 does a creditable job of de-interlacing SD programming, but the success depends on the source. "It's really hard to polish a ..."

The new MPEG-4 compression scheme uses a lot more CPU horsepower to handle the data. I haven't read up on all the tricks it uses, but in addition to better data compression I suspect it does things like use pattern recognition to just reposition pixels during a pan. When Dish rolled out the new MPEG-4 HD channels, they were actually still encoded in MPEG-2 with an MPEG-4 header. The new encoders were not ready yet. I haven't heard if Dish has started to use MPEG-4 or not, but judging from the amount of pixellation I see on HD channels, I would guess not.

If Dish only transmitted one channel, the variation in data rate would not be an advantage, but Dish multiplexes several channels onto each transponder. Half a dozen channels will fit on a single transponder, when any single channel may at times require almost half the bandwidth of that transponder. When the data rate exceeds the available bandwidth, you get pixellation.

I haven't paid much attention to the picture quality on IFC lately. I have been a little short on time for movie watching. I have never noticed that IFC had a bad picture, and I have a very large screen. Picture quality seems to depend as much on the source as anything. If IFC is broadcasting poorly mastered DVDs, there isn't much that Dish can do about it. Sometimes there is even a variation on the same DVD. I have the Babylon-5 collection. The videotape portions are mediocre quality, but when the CGI portions come on screen they really pop! Blame the source.

You can use your 622 to estimate the data rate of the programming you record. The recording time left is based on an average. Some HD programming uses an hour of HD recording time, some uses as little as 40 minutes. That doesn't mean that one picture is only 2/3 as good as the other. Different types of programming place different demands on the system.

#58 OFFLINE   Mr.72

Mr.72

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 564 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 10:30 AM

the overly technical description of MPEG doesn't have anything to do with the issue of native pass-thru.

and if you can't see what's wrong with IFC, you need to see an optometrist ASAP.
Sling-enabled Hopper, Joey, RokuXD, coupla HDTVs, a real old DD5.1 receiver and a 1963 Fisher tube hifi

#59 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,886 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 March 2007 - 10:43 AM

the overly technical description of MPEG doesn't have anything to do with the issue of native pass-thru.

The core thought that should be taken away from this discussion is this:

Your TV is not designed to handle the signal that E* and D* are transmitting over satellite. In order to display that signal on your TV the receiver must convert it into a standard your receiver understands. That is a conversion, not pass through.

Even when something called "native pass through" is available it won't be a direct pass through from source to TV. All that MPEG stuff is in the way, like it or not.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#60 OFFLINE   Mr.72

Mr.72

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 564 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:25 PM

Exactly. Thanks for making it very clear, James. I think even using the term "native pass-thru" kind of misleads people into thinking it is doing something it is not.
Sling-enabled Hopper, Joey, RokuXD, coupla HDTVs, a real old DD5.1 receiver and a 1963 Fisher tube hifi

#61 OFFLINE   Ron Barry

Ron Barry

    622 Tips & Trick Keeper

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 9,879 posts
Joined: Dec 10, 2002

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:43 PM

Hmmm let me see if I have my understanding correct. I have always called it native pass-through.

You have content that is encoded to a particular format and passed to the 622. I am assuming that this content is encoded to 720p, 1080i, or 480i at the source and passed as a MPEG-4 or MPEG-2 stream.

At this point, The 622 takes the stream and then depending on the resolution setting send the stream out in the user selected formate.

In the case of Native Pass through, the 622 would take the stream and send it out in the format that it received.

What am I missing here. To me, it is passing it natively how it was received and not doing any translation to format other than how it was received by the 622
<strong class='bbc'>New Member of the 9K club & 922/612 User<br /></strong><span style='font-size: 8px;'>"A release is not a release until it is released." - Me. <br />"To the true believer, no proof is necessary. To the non believer, no proof is sufficient." - Peter James (Derived from a Stewert Chase Quote)</span>

#62 OFFLINE   Mr.72

Mr.72

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 564 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:54 PM

The problem is, between when Dish Network receives the signal and when they finally send it out to the sat, encoded in their format, they may [likely] change the original format/resolution/frame-rate/interlacing/etc. so that it is no longer the same identical signal.

The presumption of "native pass-thru" is that there is some native format that can be passed on to the TV from the 622. That is likely rarely the case. Maybe for local broadcast OTA channels but not for much else. If the 622 were to pass on the "native" channel stream without somehow constructing or scaling it, then it would not be compatible with the TV.
Sling-enabled Hopper, Joey, RokuXD, coupla HDTVs, a real old DD5.1 receiver and a 1963 Fisher tube hifi

#63 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,621 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:06 PM

Part of the answer depends on what the Dish receiver actually does.

For an SD channel, for instance... does it first convert to 480i and then convert to 720p or 1080i for output if you have that selected? OR does it convert directly to 720p or 1080i from the satellite signal?

IF it converts the satellite signal directly to the output format, then I would agree "native passthrough" may not make a difference because the receiver is already doing the level of conversion necessary. Exceptions would be that a 720p "native" signal would appear better at 720p output than at 1080i and similarly 1080i would look better at 1080i than 720p... but since there technically always has to be processing done by the receiver this would still be true.

Some innards of the receivers would need to be known to actually determine how this would work in reality. Of course I would still like to have the option of "native" passthrough.

-- !rotaredoM mA eM

What I do when I'm not here


#64 OFFLINE   Ron Barry

Ron Barry

    622 Tips & Trick Keeper

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 9,879 posts
Joined: Dec 10, 2002

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:07 PM

I was under the impression that getting it into a Format the TV would be something done on the head end not the receiver end, but I would not be surprised if it was something the receiver did.

There have been discussion talking about how some programs are sent 1080i and some 720p so I assumed that this is what the Head sends to the receiver when it comes down to it. You have a MPEG-2 stream.. It has a certain resolution associated with it and I would expect that resolution to be in standard resolutions that TVs understand..

Hmmm then I remember the whole discussions about sending lower resolutions and ofcourse those would have to be scaled to some extent.. (Another discussion for another thread outside of the 622 forum). ;)

I guess in the end... The goal for the end user is to have it outputted in its intended format. If the program is intended to be 720p it goes as 720p and if it intended for 1080i it goes as 1080i and if 480i it goes as 480i. In the end what users are wanting from this feature is for the TV to do the scaling.

This feature has been discussed a few times before... As to what type of user features something like this should have to meet various TV environments. For example... How do you address TVs that only support 1080i and 480i/p? or 720p/480i/p?
<strong class='bbc'>New Member of the 9K club & 922/612 User<br /></strong><span style='font-size: 8px;'>"A release is not a release until it is released." - Me. <br />"To the true believer, no proof is necessary. To the non believer, no proof is sufficient." - Peter James (Derived from a Stewert Chase Quote)</span>

#65 OFFLINE   PhantomOG

PhantomOG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 183 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:27 PM

I guess in the end... The goal for the end user is to have it outputted in its intended format. If the program is intended to be 720p it goes as 720p and if it intended for 1080i it goes as 1080i and if 480i it goes as 480i. In the end what users are wanting from this feature is for the TV to do the scaling.


Exactly. When I say I want native pass-through I'm not complaining about any compression/decompression/encoding/transcoding/decoding.... I'm saying I want Dish to output to my TV the same resolution (480/720/1080) that it got originally. I don't care how they do it. No one wants to know how the sausage is made... :grin:

Call it what you want. But me getting the signal in its original resolution IS a good thing for me and my specific TV. If you don't like it, fine, they should make it an option, but please don't tell me its a bad thing or not worthwhile. I'm sure there are options/aspects of the 622 that each and everyone out there doesn't use. That doesn't mean its bad or useless, its just not applicable to you. I guess I just don't understand the sudden thought that having an option like this is a bad idea. It clearly would help me and my setup. If it doesn't help you, don't use it.

#66 OFFLINE   PhantomOG

PhantomOG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 183 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:30 PM

For example... How do you address TVs that only support 1080i and 480i/p? or 720p/480i/p?


I think its pretty rare for an HD tv not to support ALL 1080i/720p/480i/p. It just scales it to whatever is necessary. That said, there probably are some out there. That's why I said it should be an optional thing. You can either select the resolution output (like now) or you can have "NATIVE RESOLUTION" which passes each channel in the RESOLUTION it was sent to Dish originally.

There, I want native resolution, not native passthrough!

#67 OFFLINE   Mr.72

Mr.72

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 564 posts
Joined: Feb 02, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:36 PM

But me getting the signal in its original resolution IS a good thing for me and my specific TV.


I agree. However I think "native pass-thru" is misleading terminology, and when we ask for it, we may be getting an answer like "Soon" aka "never" because what we are asking for is not really what we want.

I think what we want is more like, SD channels come out in 480i, progressive-scan HD channels come out in 720p and interlaced HD channels come out in 1080i. Maybe we need some fancy marketing word to describe this like "automatic format detection" or something like that but native pass-thru may be asking for too much.

If you don't like it, fine, they should make it an option, but please don't tell me its a bad thing or not worthwhile. I'm sure there are options/aspects of the 622 that each and everyone out there doesn't use. That doesn't mean its bad or useless, its just not applicable to you.


apparently, if there's some feature you want that is not applicable to everyone else, it does in fact make it bad or useless, at least according to the response I am getting on this thread:

http://www.dbstalk.c...ead.php?t=83437

I continue to be surprised at the extent to which dbstalk users are willing to bend their expectations of the product to fit whatever is offered to them.
Sling-enabled Hopper, Joey, RokuXD, coupla HDTVs, a real old DD5.1 receiver and a 1963 Fisher tube hifi

#68 OFFLINE   PhantomOG

PhantomOG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 183 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:45 PM

apparently, if there's some feature you want that is not applicable to everyone else, it does in fact make it bad or useless, at least according to the response I am getting on this thread:


yah, I get what you are saying. For what you want, they would have to have a button on the remotes to toggle single-dual mode. However, for other users afraid of hijacking problems, they would need to make this button "optional" in some way to prevent the threat. It could be done, just more complicated. Either the remotes have to change, or they introduce some sort of shift function to the current remote.

I have no problem with having the button as an option, so long as it is defeatable as well. Much like the misunderstanding with "native resolution" maybe the others are not seeing it as a possible *defeatable* option.

I seriously believe everyone here is smart enough not to fight a new feature so long as the previous behaviour is still repeatable for those who do not want the feature. All just misunderstandings.

I propose from now on we call it "native resolution output" instead of "native passthrough". All in???

#69 OFFLINE   Ron Barry

Ron Barry

    622 Tips & Trick Keeper

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 9,879 posts
Joined: Dec 10, 2002

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:54 PM

apparently, if there's some feature you want that is not applicable to everyone else, it does in fact make it bad or useless, at least according to the response I am getting on this thread:

http://www.dbstalk.c...ead.php?t=83437

I continue to be surprised at the extent to which dbstalk users are willing to bend their expectations of the product to fit whatever is offered to them.


Can't speak for everyone that replied, but I don't think I was saying the feature is useless or bad. Actually I said how I could see its usefullness to some. However, I personally see some usability issues it brings up and this way I dont' think it is a good idea.

My opinion (Cant speak for all that posted) is just different and personally I see it as understanding the limitations of the feature rather than bending my expectations to fit what is currently offered. ;)

As for native resolution support, I see this feature has having big potential PQ improvments for a number of users in the SD department and given the complaints here regarding poorer SD quality for some would be a big win.

As for the naming, I believe Native-Pass through is how it was coined with other receivers that current support a feature like this and when it has been talked about with the 811, 921, 942 and now the 622 it has be referred to by that name. Technically might not be accurate, but it has been the name used for a while (if memory serves)
<strong class='bbc'>New Member of the 9K club & 922/612 User<br /></strong><span style='font-size: 8px;'>"A release is not a release until it is released." - Me. <br />"To the true believer, no proof is necessary. To the non believer, no proof is sufficient." - Peter James (Derived from a Stewert Chase Quote)</span>

#70 OFFLINE   dbconsultant

dbconsultant

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,260 posts
  • LocationTemecula, CA
Joined: Sep 13, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:03 PM

Exactly. When I say I want native pass-through I'm not complaining about any compression/decompression/encoding/transcoding/decoding.... I'm saying I want Dish to output to my TV the same resolution (480/720/1080) that it got originally. I don't care how they do it. No one wants to know how the sausage is made... :grin:

Call it what you want. But me getting the signal in its original resolution IS a good thing for me and my specific TV.



Exactly! My Sony does an excellent job of making an sd picture (480) fit my widescreen with it's 'wide zoom' - nobody looks squished and I don't lose much on the top or bottom of the picture - but it doesn't let me use it's wide-mode function on 1080i signals. The 622's formatting doesn't do nearly as well (partial zoom looks smashed and zoom cuts off too much) and I don't want to switch back and forth between inputs on the tv or the settings on the 622's menu to output 480i. That's why I want the native pass-through option.

#71 OFFLINE   Larry Caldwell

Larry Caldwell

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Apr 04, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:25 PM

The problem is, between when Dish Network receives the signal and when they finally send it out to the sat, encoded in their format, they may [likely] change the original format/resolution/frame-rate/interlacing/etc. so that it is no longer the same identical signal.


MPEG-2 was designed to accommodate NTSC and PAL. A native MPEG-2 signal is 480i. They tacked on extensions to the standard to encode HD.

MPEG-4 is entirely different. In the future, it would be an advantage to satellite TV providers to convert all programming to MPEG-4, since it would give them a lot more bandwidth to play with. However, it is very new, and not even fully implemented for HD, much less for SD programming. There will probably be a lot of tweaks to the standard over the next 10 years, as the old SD equipment goes obsolete. Trying to implement a native resolution output at this point would be shooting at a moving target. It's not impossible, but would probably require more software updates in the future.

#72 OFFLINE   Larry Caldwell

Larry Caldwell

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Apr 04, 2005

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:27 PM

Exactly! My Sony does an excellent job of making an sd picture (480) fit my widescreen with it's 'wide zoom' - nobody looks squished and I don't lose much on the top or bottom of the picture - but it doesn't let me use it's wide-mode function on 1080i signals. The 622's formatting doesn't do nearly as well (partial zoom looks smashed and zoom cuts off too much) and I don't want to switch back and forth between inputs on the tv or the settings on the 622's menu to output 480i. That's why I want the native pass-through option.


I would be happy if Dish just fixed the 622 zoom so it doesn't cut off so much on the top and bottom of letterboxed SD programming.

#73 OFFLINE   PhantomOG

PhantomOG

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 183 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2007

Posted 27 March 2007 - 03:48 PM

Trying to implement a native resolution output at this point would be shooting at a moving target.


Well, it seems to me that the 622 is well aware of which channels are HD and which are SD (based on the fact that the Format button remembers a mode for each type of channel). All I'm asking is that the resolution of the SD channels be output at 480i/p over component with the current HD outputs staying the same. It already distinguishes between the two and obviously has memory dedicated for the two. All I want it the option setting the resolution independently as well. The more I think about it the more it seems this should be pretty trivial to implement. Please DISH!!!

I don't want native pass through.... I want to be able to select the resolution of SD and HD channels independently. That sounds really doable, doesn't it? We already have independent stretch modes for each. What's the tech support email?

#74 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,886 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 March 2007 - 04:18 PM

"Native Pass Through" would apply to OTA signals ... received in 1080i would output as 1080i, received as 720p would output as 720p. 480i would pass through as 480i. OTA ATSC TV stations must broadcast in one (or more) of the 18 approved formats that TVs are required to be able to tune.

The difference on satellite channels is that the "via satellite" part is NOT required to follow the 18 OTA standards. There are ATSC approved compression standards for satellite. Some of those standards have been referred to as "HD Lite".

IF E* offers "native pass through" of OTA it will allow the TV scaler to take over the job of making the output look good. For satellite the receiver would have to recreate the closest to "standard" signal possible ... or one would have to get a TV that would accept the satellite formats (like 1280 and 1440 x 1080i) and display them correctly.

I wonder if, when E* introduces this feature, it will be OTA only and what sort of interface they will put in to choose what format is output. It could be a simple "native" selection instead of 1080i/720p/480i/480p on the HDTV output screen. Which means a lot of resyncing every time one changes the channel.

Also, If I'm watching HBO HD (1080i) and ESPN HD (720p) using PIP what format is output? So many questions! :)
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#75 OFFLINE   Rod

Rod

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 9 posts
Joined: Jan 09, 2003

Posted 28 March 2007 - 06:14 AM

I am not a Direct TV subscriber but I found it interesting that their HR20 receiver supports Native Mode. I have read a considerable amount of commentary regarding exactly how the 622 converts data from the MPEG stream it receives to the signal it finally delivers and if a native mode, as I understand it, is even possible. The information below would appear to indicate that the concept of native mode is possible on a satellite receiver. I also understand that the 622 and HR20 are different and what applies to one receiver may not apply to the other.

I have included pages 74, 83 and 85 from the HR20 users guide. You will note references to Native Mode on each of those pages. Of particular interest is the note on page 83 which states;

"In Native mode, the receiver automatically adjusts resolutions to match the resolution of the individual TV program as they are tuned".

I am sure those of you that are more technically inclined than I can provide your input on exactly what the note above actually means. It would also be interesting to hear comments from HR20 owners.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 1.JPG
  • 2.JPG
  • 3.JPG





Protected By... spam firewall...And...