Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Video Asylum

RE: Here's the specs.

211.27.165.180

David Aiken

In Reply to: RE: Here's the specs. posted by GoingCoastal on November 14, 2007 at 00:48:32

We're talking about whether or not the output from a satellite receiver should be 720p or 1080i.

The TV can certainly do what you say, but that doesn't mean that you will get the best results setting the satellite receiver output to 1080i for all broadcast signals.

You should definitely set it to 1080i for material broadcast at 1080i. That preserves native resolution and means the only signal processing involved will be de-interlacing in the TV.

It may not be the case for 720 p broadcasts. Setting the receiver output to 1080i for a 720p signal convers the signal to interlaced and also scales it. The TV then has to de-interlace it. Total processing is a single scaling process in the receiver and an interlacing process in the receiver and a de-interlacing process in the TV. Letting the receiver output the signal at 720 p, the only processing will be a scaling process in the TV. You avoid the steps of interlacing the signal then de-interlaciing it again, which may not occur perfectly and which could easily produce image degradation. It's also quite possible that the TV will have a better scaler than the satellite box. My guess is that the image quality will be better if the TV processes a 720p signal if the broadcast is 720p.

As I said, it's going to depend on the broadcast signal and then how good the processing is in the satellite receiver because if you allow it to output a 1080i signal for a 720p broadcast, you are introducing more processing stages than if you simply pass the signal to the TV as 720p.

You may be right and outputting everything at 1080i may be the way to go, but while that is certainly the best way to go for 1080i broadcasts, it is not necessarily the best way to go for 720p broadcasts. You do have 2 processing options there depending on which output you choose from the satellite receiver and which is better is going to depend on how well the satellite receiver and the TV handle the different options.

David Aiken

Follow Ups:

RE: Here's the specs. - racerguy 14:38:08 11/14/07 (5)
> > while that is certainly the best way to go for 1080i broadcasts, it is not necessarily the best way to go for 720p broadcasts. < <

Indeed. He could obsess over it and make a list of the resolutions of all the various broadcasts, then reconfigure everything each time he watches TV, all for at best a minuscule improvement in the picture.

Or, he could just pick one setting and watch TV :-)
- RE: Here's the specs. - David Aiken 23:59:38 11/15/07 (4)
  I have a digital settop box for off air digital broadcasts in both standard and high definition. It offers the option of choosing a specific resolution or passing the signal in its native resolution. I choose to pass it in native resolution so it reconfigures automatically each time the program resolution changes as I swap channels.
  
  I tried a few tests, decided which option I thought was best, set it and now I simply watch TV. Picking a specific output resolution is not the only option with many digital TV receivers.
  
  David Aiken
  - RE: Here's the specs. - Jack G 06:11:03 11/16/07 (3)
    I skipped the set top box completely. I have my cable (coax) going straight into my TV, and use my digital tuner. I have a separate coax going from an attic antenna to my TV for local OTA channels.
    Jack
    - RE: Here's the specs. - David Aiken 13:06:56 11/16/07 (2)
      My TV doesn't have a digital tuner and I get much better picture quality with digital signals, especially on the local OTA high def stations, so I'm stuck with the set-top box until such time as I replace the TV.
      
      Cable isn't an issue for me. I don't have it and, frankly, I don't find my local cable network's offerings enticing.
      
      David Aiken
      - Isn't OTA nice ? - Jack G 13:55:20 11/16/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Here's the specs. posted by David Aiken on November 16, 2007 at 13:06:56
        
        Its HD has a better picture than the same channels via cable. Idon't watch much cable, only a couple channels.
        jack
        
        RE: Isn't OTA nice ? - David Aiken 22:54:00 11/16/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Isn't OTA nice ? posted by Jack G on November 16, 2007 at 13:55:20
        
        Don't know about in the US but OTA here in Australia is very nice.
        
        I'm impressed by the improvement I see swapping from the standard def channel to the high def channel for the same broadcast, even on my screen which is 32" and 1366 x 768 resolution.
        
        I only have a standard def disc player at the moment but I'm seriously contemplating a BD player when some version 1.1 players that handle both Dolby and DTS new formats become available here. I think the picture quality I get from a standard def DVD with good image quality is much better than OTA standard def and close to some OTA high def material so I anticipate a high def player doing better than high def OTA quality and that certainly is nothing to sneeze at.
        
        David Aiken

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.