"ever" is a very long time. Someday, we'll probably see full blown 3-D virtual reality with much greater than 1080p resolution. Hopefully in my lifetime 
I ask because as I contemplate venturing into the BR disc world with a purchase, I would rather have a one-box solution, e.g. D* feeding me 24fps HD movies on demand.litzdog911 said:"ever" is a very long time. Someday, we'll probably see full blown 3-D virtual reality with much greater than 1080p resolution. Hopefully in my lifetime![]()
Anything short of ultra fast you won't be streaming 1080p I can't even stream 480i.:lol:feschiver said:How fast is your download speed![]()
6mb/secfeschiver said:How fast is your download speed![]()
I agree. The only way it would be viable is if they delivered it via satellite.LarryFlowers said:It could come to pass... when and if the demand is there. It is one thing to offer it, another entirely for it to be useful.
Face it, not a lot of people have internet connections faster than 3MB, let alone the 6 or more it would take to make this viable.
For about the tenth time..... you can already get 1080p/24 video from existing DirecTV HD transmissions. 24fps source material that is transmitted in 1080i/60 has every bit of information that would be contained in a 1080p/24 transmission of the same source. A properly deinterlaced 1080i/60 transmission of 24fps source will be no different than if it had been transmitted in 1080p/24.jediphish said:With recent news that DISH may do something like this, what are the chances that D* will have such an offering any time in the future? I love Blu-Ray but would also like to be able to get 24fps material from the sky as well.
1080p/24 takes less bandwidth than 1080i/60. Theoretically, a "fast" internet connection (6-8mb+) should be able to stream that. But what I've found with DirecTV is, their servers can't push it out that fast.Brandon428 said:Anything short of ultra fast you won't be streaming 1080p I can't even stream 480i.:lol:
1080i/60 content would have already gone through a 3/2 pulldown to get to 60hz, then simply multiplied times two to get to 120hz. It could have reverse pullodwn applied to it, then processed through proper 5/5, but Faroudja has a patent on that. I don't know if any TVs are doing that. I would expect that most only do a proper 5/5 if they are fed a 24hz input. Therefore, you end up with judder.cartrivision said:If you have a 120Hz refresh rate HDTV the 1080i/60 signal will be deinterlaced into 24 progressive frames per second that are then each repeated 5 times each to match the TV's 120fps frame rate, giving you exactly the same picture that you would have gotten from 1080p/24.
It appears that downloads are throttled to about 2mbps, my observation of course. I have two HR's networked and with both downloading, at the same time, I still have about 2mbps of bandwidth left on my 6.0 DSL. If I run a speed test while downloading it appears to measure what is not being used at the time. If I am downloading to one HR, my reserve is almost always 4mbps. I'm sure these are not absolute measurements, but good reference anyway.DarinC said:1080p/24 takes less bandwidth than 1080i/60. Theoretically, a "fast" internet connection (6-8mb+) should be able to stream that. But what I've found with DirecTV is, their servers can't push it out that fast.
For about the second time, your statement is only true in regards to a single frame. 1080i60 frames in succession are more "data" than 1080p24 but its not the native format used in the original movie. 3:2 conversion introduces artifacts that are not there in a 1080p24 transmission.cartrivision said:For about the tenth time..... you can already get 1080p/24 video from existing DirecTV HD transmissions. 24fps source material that is transmitted in 1080i/60 has every bit of information that would be contained in a 1080p/24 transmission of the same source. A properly deinterlaced 1080i/60 transmission of 24fps source will be no different than if it had been transmitted in 1080p/24.
If you have a 120Hz refresh rate HDTV the 1080i/60 signal will be deinterlaced into 24 progressive frames per second that are then each repeated 5 times each to match the TV's 120fps frame rate, giving you exactly the same picture that you would have gotten from 1080p/24.
The same idea applies if you are watching on a 60Hz refresh rate HDTV. As long as the TV does the deinterlacing properly, there is no difference in the end result between a 1080p24 and a 1080i/60 transmission of 24fps source material.
Not to mention a TV that would handle that resolution. At least not yet.LarryFlowers said:Face it, not a lot of people have internet connections faster than 3MB, let alone the 6 or more it would take to make this viable.
Yes, I'm soon to be in the market for a new one. Seems that many, even when fed a proper 24fps signal, still do 3/2 pulldown, then just multiply the result by 2!?! Just seems crazy. And it can be really difficult getting a reliable answer from the Mfg to know for sure how a particular set handles it. :nono2:Tom Robertson said:Speaking of TVs ... only a third of the 1080p marketed TVs at that time really could handle all the 1080p modes, most often failing the 1080p24 mode--most important for movies.![]()
My 3 year old TV can handle 24 fps input and will display at 3x the rate (albeit it downscales to 768p but it does display 24 fps native frames in their proper sequence). I realize not all TVs can do this but it would seem that more will as time goes on.Tom Robertson said:Speaking of TVs, I was talking to Joe Kane of WideScreen Review (and other cool video toys) at CES in 2007. The CEA who runs the show wanted to have a dedicated internal channel on the show floor that was all 1080p content to help manufacturers showcase 1080p.
It had to be abandoned because only a third of the 1080p marketed TVs at that time really could handle all the 1080p modes, most often failing the 1080p24 mode--most important for movies.
Cheers,
Tom