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

Dish Needs to Get Moving on 3D

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by Michael1, May 18, 2011.

What is your current interest in 3D?

  1. I own a 3DTV and am anxious for more 3D content

    28 vote(s)
  2. I don't yet own a 3DTV but am planning to buy within the next 6 months

    11 vote(s)
  3. I own a 3DTV but am not really interested in 3D content

    19 vote(s)
  4. I don't own a 3DTV and am not planning on investing in 3D in the near future

    54 vote(s)
  1. Jul 2, 2012 #441 of 616

    olguy Hall Of Fame

    Jan 9, 2006
    The Dish receivers can do 1080P. Why do you think they offer 1080P movies? The connections from the Dish receiver to the TV, including A/V receiver must pass a little Dish test in order for you to receive 1080P. There are no 1080P broadcasts so it's really not a big thing unless you want to watch 1080P movies, which most of us can do.
  2. Jul 2, 2012 #442 of 616

    jilla Cool Member

    Jul 2, 2012
    I heard Direct TV recievers can upconvert to 1080P but dish's don't. I have a video processor which upconverts and there is a huge difference in quality between 1080i & 1080P.
  3. Jul 2, 2012 #443 of 616

    Inkosaurus Icon

    Jul 29, 2011
    IIRC the DTV receivers broadcast channels in 1080i just like Dish and the only offerings that are in 1080p from both providers is the VoD.

    Not that it matters your TV should be doing the upconverting itself anyway.
  4. Jul 3, 2012 #444 of 616

    722921 Legend

    Jan 3, 2008
    Whatever happened to the olympics in 3D, go or no go?
  5. tampa8

    tampa8 Godfather/Supporter

    Mar 30, 2002
    Can you tell us where you heard that? And I dispute that there is much difference between an upconverted 1080I picture to 1080P and a 1080I picture. In fact I'm not sure most would be able to tell the difference. 1080I and 1080P have a difference, but even then not a smaller screen.
  6. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I keep letting myself get dragged into these things...

    1080i as broadcast is usually 30fps (actually it is 60 interlaced half-frames, thus the resulting 30 fps effective).

    1080p as broadcast is usually 24fps.

    So... arguably... there are more frames in a 1080i transmission than a 1080p one. The whole argument of progressive vs interlaced would have been a big deal 20 years ago when TVs weren't as good and you could see some flicker in the interlace sweeps...

    But modern TVs either are fast enough and accurate enough to overcome that OR convert the 2 interlaced frames into a single progressive frame and display it that way to begin with...

    Thus... the actual difference between 1080i 30fps and 1080p 24fps should be very little... and technically the 30fps should be better.

    Now... IF we ever are comparing 1080p at 60fps... then you have an argument of smoother motion with the higher number of frames. But until then, it's really a non-discussion.
  7. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Apr 17, 2003
    Conversion comes down to the original source. If something was recorded in 1080i the half frames could be half way to the next frame ... converting to 1080p/30 by pairing half frames would not provide 30 full snapshots per second ... and going to 1080p/24 would require losing some of those snapshots.

    If the original source was a 24 fps film but it was transcoded and broadcast in 1080i then they have added half frames along the way ... 24 frames converted to 60 half frames. Even if every frame in the feed was an I-frame it would be difficult (if not impossible) to recreate the original 24 full snapshots.

    Conversions are designed to make one type of content look good on another type of screen. Personally I'd trust the converter in the monitor more than one built in to any satellite box as the one in the monitor is designed specifically for that monitor. If it is an older monitor/TV a third party converter may be better if it has newer conversion alogrhythms than an old converter.

    DISH currently transmits 1080p only as a file ... the only way to see 1080p on a DISH receiver is to view a VOD on channel 1/501 that is marked 1080p or to use the receiver to download 1080p content over the Internet. The "live" channel feeds are either 1080i, 720p or SD. The receiver's output can be set to 1080i, 720p, 480i or 480p. The receiver will automatically change it's output to 1080p when displaying 1080p content. The receiver will also convert between the 1080i/720p/480i satellite feeds and the user's choice of receiver output (sorry, no native pass through).

    If DISH ever transmitted 1080p as a live satellite feed (instead of a file) the receiver would probably follow the same rules ... outputting 1080p when 1080p content is being served. But converting 1080i to 1080p is better done by the monitor or intermediate equipment.
  8. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    DIRECTV's receivers DO NOT up-convert to 1080p.
  9. olds403

    olds403 Godfather

    Nov 20, 2007
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Icon

    May 5, 2005
    Back to the original topic: Read an article yesterday where the reviewer lived with a new 3D TV for three weeks. His conclusion: 3D is wonderful for games. Good for animatation. Not worth much for 3D TV channels like ESPN 3D. He also found the restrictions on viewing angles very annoying for normal TV viewing and didn't believe it would ever find wide acceptance with problems like that. His only hope for widespread acceptance of 3D was a glasses free technology. But he was very happy with the 2D picture quality of his 3D TV. Seemed to echo another review of 3D I read some time ago. That reviewer recommended buying a 3D ready TV because they were the top of the line in 2D picture quality.
  11. RAD

    RAD Well-Known Member

    Aug 5, 2002
    Did it mention what set it was? I have a Samsung Plasma and no problems with viewing angles for 2D or 3D, or should say the same issues that any set would have. It uses 3D active glasses and I can go all over the room with them and no problems cause by viewing angles. I have heard that for passive glasses that can be a problem.
  12. FarmerBob

    FarmerBob Godfather

    Nov 27, 2002
    Great observation. And I have been reading more and more on that more people are being exposed to 3D and not faring too well. I know I have to wait sometime, depending no how long I have been exposed, to get my ability for "real" world 3D back in sync. Johnny Depp didn't attend the opening of the last PotC, because it was in 3D and he can't see it. Which we are finding out that this is not a small cross section of the population. The current technology is just too archaic and rushed to market.

    I'm seeing that more people are discovering this after they purchase without the forethought of any repercussions. It's just not something that one thinks about until after you have purchased, been exposed and are forced to realize. Sales hype is a very powerful thing. And what with the power of just a small amount of highly positive reviews, people jump. Luckily none of my clients want it. They are just not interested. Or if we do go with a 3D set, we don't do anything further on the 3D side. But max it out for 2D and leave it.

    I have always known that "artificial" 3D is contrary to the human condition and that we just aren't there yet in the technology. Not saying that we we won't be . . . someday. But not just yet. What is really needed is "one" specification on the format so that development can be focused on it and no Betamax/VHS or DVD/BD squabbling. And the way manufacturers throw stuff on the market just to get the newest and latest out there whether it be try and true or not just adds to the mindset of "we'll work it out later" or "what they don't find out/realize until after the return period is over, won't hurt us".
  13. Rduce

    Rduce Legend

    May 15, 2008
    What has happen to the hue and cry for 3D channels or have we given up hope that the technology is still not ready for prime time and has faded into the mist like many times before?
  14. clapple

    clapple Godfather

    Feb 11, 2003
    If the Dolby/Phillips glasses free 3D is as reported, it will kick start the entire 3D program!
  15. Rduce

    Rduce Legend

    May 15, 2008
    The last article I read, and I forget where, around the beginning of October, states that they had refocused the technology toward out of home media, such as billboards, bus shelters, movie posters and such.

    Did not give any indication that they were even working on bringing it to movie theaters or home television. This was the first article I had seen since last spring when they made the initial announcement of their technology break through.

    Perhaps they read the writing on the wall and decided to take it toward a media they expect can support their research until the home markets are more tolerable of the product.
  16. blackhillsjk

    blackhillsjk Cool Member

    Mar 2, 2012
    Dish can't even get the Locals, ESPNU or full time sports channels in HD, how in the hell do you think they will get 3-D right. :nono2:
  17. jclangston

    jclangston Cool Member

    Oct 19, 2010
    They could, Dish just elects not to pay for them. ie Charlie
  18. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    I hate to say it... but even the 3D die-hards have not been as vocal in quite a while... I'm left to conclude this was yet another blip on the radar.
  19. Wilf

    Wilf Legend

    Oct 15, 2008
    Folks get excited about 3D every 20 to 40 years. It has been that way since photography was invented. Got a stereopticon or a Stereo Realist in your attic?
  20. John79605

    John79605 Legend

    Feb 9, 2007
    I have a Realist in the attic. I also have a Viewmaster camera.

Share This Page