Child Item

Site Totals

61410 Questions Answered 270 Categories

Anyway to get a 1080p signal from fios?

A couple of weeks ago, I purchased a 32 Inch Sony Bravia 720p but yet 1080p compatible HDTV. I know my TV is capable of receiving 1080p signals as most HDTV’s are in the modern era. However, Fios via the HD DVR only broadcast up to a 1080I signal. My question is this, is there anyway to get a 1080p signal from Fios or will 1080I have to be settled for? What I mean is under video options on the set top box the options are 480I, 480P, 720P and 1080I there is no 1080P option.

Comments

matcarl

No one is broadcasting in 1080p therefore no provider is offering it.

Keyboards

The simple answer is no for 1080p. The Motorola hardware does not support it and as Matcarl said, there is presently no 1080p content being broadcast (Dish is doing a 1080p VOD which is actually an IP download to their newest custom STB). If you truly want 1080p then you will have to go to B-Ray disc.

TimSykes

@Keyboards wrote:
The simple answer is no for 1080p. The Motorola hardware does not support it and as Matcarl said, there is presently no 1080p content being broadcast (Dish is doing a 1080p VOD which is actually an IP download to their newest custom STB). If you truly want 1080p then you will have to go to B-Ray disc.

To add to this. It will be a long time before 1080p is supported by any cable provideror, TV network, the bandwidth it takes to broadcast in 1080p is huge and it would bottleneck to cable infrastructure. We all want 1080p, but its just no feasible now.

SLE

I guess this is why I'm getting such horrible artifact/pixilation on my screen during fast moving scenes. I have a Panasonic plasma. Verizon says they are just passing along what they receive from their sources (ABC,CBS, HBO, etc). When I play the same scenes via DVD, it's clear as a bell without the problem.

I find it very annoying and prevalent and not close to the "crystal clear" images that Verizon advertises.

Keyboards

@SLE wrote:
I guess this is why I'm getting such horrible artifact/pixilation on my screen during fast moving scenes. I have a Panasonic plasma. Verizon says they are just passing along what they receive from their sources (ABC,CBS, HBO, etc). When I play the same scenes via DVD, it's clear as a bell without the problem.
I find it very annoying and prevalent and not close to the "crystal clear" images that Verizon advertises.

Keep in mind that the maximum true resolution for DVD is 720p, even if your DVD player outputs at 1080i or 1080p. That means there is considerably less detail in the original material than what is provided at 1080i by Verizon. Also, some of the channels (both broadcast and cable) only send their signal at 720p requirng the STB to upconvert to 1080i (all the Disney channels [ABC, ESPN, etc.] and most if not all FOX channels). If you have a QAM tuner in your set you can directly tune the local HD stations and they are only transmitted in 1080i. No one is broadcasting 1080p at this time and Verizon is one of the few providers that does pass through the signal as received (without further compression).

BigDaddyTees

I’m sort of glad I didn’t opt for a 1080p tv then as in my case it probably would have been a waste, aside from playing BLU ray disk/HD video games. I’m someone who mostly watches their tv and occasional does other things with it (see above.)

KenAF

@BigDaddyTees wrote:
I’m sort of glad I didn’t opt for a 1080p tv then as in my case it probably would have been a waste, aside from playing BLU ray disk/HD video games. I’m someone who mostly watches their tv and occasional does other things with it (see above.)

All channels are already distributed in compressed format (typically MPEG-2). Some cable providers pass the local HD channels as they receive them, but virtually all apply additional compression on the cable HD channels (i.e. they re-compress). Verizon FiOS is the only major provider does not recompress any of its HD channels to save bandwidth. FiOS does recompress a few [mostly premium] channels distributed in MPEG4 format, but only to redistribute them in MPEG2 for those without MPEG4-capable receivers.

Not all content providers allocate and equal bitrate to their HD channels. Most channels are distributed via rented capacity on satellite, and that costs serious money, especially for content providers that supply mutiple HD channels. More budget consious content providers may use lower bitrates, either to minimize satellite carriage costs and/or make their channels more enticing to cable providers that face severe bandwidth constraints. If a particular cable provider is constrained for bandwidth, they may be willing to add a $10,000 in time and equipment to recompress TNTHD -- a channel many demand -- but they may not be as willing to do the same thing for a lesser watched channel like HGTV. Cable channels like ESPN, TNT, USA, SciFi, Hdnet, MHD, and CNBC all distribute their channels at fairly high bitrates, while cable channels like HGTV, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and the Science Channel are distributed with significantly lower bitrates.

Local broadcasters (ex: ABC/FOX/CBS/NBC) all have 19.4Mbps available to work with, but that must be split between the main HD feed, any SD subchannels for traffic/weather/etc, and a limited amount of PSIP guide data. Some broadcast networks also sell a portion of their bandwidth to other companies for commercial datacast purposes. These days, it's very rare to find a network affiliate that uses anything close to 19.4Mbps. Most independently owned NBC and CBS affiliates dedicate just 12-14Mbps to their HD feed, with the rest used for weather / traffic / news subchannels. A 12-14Mbps feed is generally sufficient to provide a high-quality picture on 1080p24 sourced content like movies and episodic series -- albeit with some added blurring on motion -- but is often inadequate to provide a high-quality picture on native 1080i60 video with lots of movement, such as sports. Today, the best network picture is typically found on CBS owned-and-operated affiliates, as they all devote at least ~16.0Mbps to their HD feeds.

Less bandwith for the HD feed translates into higher compression. Generally, the first thing compression equipment does is is filter [out] shadow detail. This includes fine details that you might see in faces, hair, and clothes. After that, compression equipment will reduce the amount of motion information in the picture signal, resulting in more blurring. Compression may also reduce the color gradations in certain parts of the image. When all this is inadequate for a certain scene to achieve the desired bitrate set by the cable company or broadcaster, you'll start to see more obvious defects like blocking and/or stutter (dropped frames). This is most common in motion scenes, which require significantly more bandwidth than static scenes.

In an ideal world, Verizon FiOS would obtain full-bandwidth 19.4Mbps feeds from each ABC/CBS/NBC affiliate, but that just isn't an option without buying thousands of dollars in new equipment for each affiliate. Most local networks use equipment that allows them to output their commercially-integrated channel at one bitrate and one bitrate only, so Verizon is stuck with the same feed used OTA. Perhaps one day, when Verizon makes the move to MPEG4, it will offer to buy new new encoders for CBS and NBC affiliates in major markets, to provide the absolutely best picture available [anywhere] on those channels. We can dream. 🙂

KenAF

TimSykes wrote:
Keyboards wrote:
The simple answer is no for 1080p. The Motorola hardware does not support it and as Matcarl said, there is presently no 1080p content being broadcast (Dish is doing a 1080p VOD which is actually an IP download to their newest custom STB). If you truly want 1080p then you will have to go to B-Ray disc.
To add to this. It will be a long time before 1080p is supported by any cable provideror, TV network, the bandwidth it takes to broadcast in 1080p is huge and it would bottleneck to cable infrastructure. We all want 1080p, but its just no feasible now.

What you've stated above is a common misconception. While a 1080p60 signal represents twice as much information, and would therefore require roughly twice as much bandwidth, the same is not true of 1080p24.

It takes significantly less bandwidth to send a 1080p24 signal than it does a 1080i60 signal. In fact, most content providers take advantage of that fact today. They take a 1080p24 source, split the 24 progressive frames into 48 interlaced fields, and then use repeat bits (which require no bandwidth) to send the other 12 interlaced fields in a 1080i60 signal. Sending 48 unique fields, while repeating 12 of those fields, takes ~20% less bandwidth than a signal with 60 unique fields.

This technique is used on almost every movie and episodic series shown on CBS and NBC, as well as the movies shown on premium movie channels such as HBO, Showtime, and Starz. Popular series like CSI, Heroes, Chuck, ER, The Office, and The Mentalist are all sent as 1080p24 by most affiliates -- just like you get from Blu-ray, but with more compression -- within a 1080i60 carrier.

A number of newer 1080p displays, as well as some external video processors, are able to detect the 1080p24 source inside a 1080i60 signal. Through a process known as inverse telecine (IVTC), the display or processor takes the 1080i60 signal, detects and eliminates the duplicate fields (added with repeat bits) to obtain 48 interlaced fields, which it then combines to create the original 24p source. On these external display processors, you can choose to output 1080p24 directly as you would from a Blu-ray player, or you can choose to output the signal as 1080p60 with 2:3 pull down. A number of these video processors feature a 1080p24 LED that "lights up" whenever a 1080p24 source is detected within the 1080i signal.

Note that correct detection and output of 1080p24 from a 1080i60 signal does not mean you're going to get Blu-ray type quality. Blu-ray still uses significantly less compression. But on displays and processors that are able to detect the original 1080p24 source, you avoid the resolution loss and blurring caused by the traditional video deinterlace on most displays. Some people assume that the blurring they say on their TV is inherent to the source, or caused by their broadcaster, when it is in fact caused by the video processing (or lack thereof) on their TV. That said, 24p detection will not eliminate the blurring that is result of overcompression by the broadcaster. Film (24p) detection requires a lot of processing power, which is why so few pre-2008 TVs can do it. The cost of such processing falls every year, so many expect this feature to become more common in 2009 models.

Pioneer Kuro plasmas are considered by many to offer the best picture quality available. The blacks and high contrast are the biggest reason for that, but they are also one of the few models (before 2009, anyway) to do this 24p detection, detecting and displaying the 1080p source contained within the 1080i signal. If you are curious whether your 2008 TV has this capability, you might want to take a look at Gary Merson's 125 display roundup (PDF). The "3/2 Pulldown" field in the PDF refers to this 24p detection capability. Even among those that do 24p detection, some displays do it more reliably than others; for example, the 2007 Pioneer Kuro 5010/6020 models were among the first consumer TVs to do this, but Pioneer improved the reliability of this function in the 2008 models.

If you want to detect and output the original 1080p24 source within the FiOS 1080i60 signal for a 1080p TV without this capability, then you can buy your own video processor to do just that. The cheapest is the DVDO Edge ($799 MSRP, but can be found for $599-$699) while a higher-end model with more reliable 24p detection would be the Denon DVP-602ci ($2000+). Some people are waiting for reviews on the repeatedly delayed GefenTV Scaler Pro, which uses the same processor in the Denon for less than half the price. The level of improvement you see would depend on the quality of the existing video deinterlace in your TV, as well as the size of your screen; the improvement isn't likely to be very obvious on a 42" screen. On the other hand, if you have a large screen...

Message Edited by KenAF on 03-23-2009 05:38 PM

SamRay

@KenAF wrote:
What you've stated above is a common misconception. While a 1080p60 signal represents twice as much information, and would therefore require roughly twice as much bandwidth, the same is not true of 1080p24.

Thank you for your extensive detailed explanation, but I expect that most of us won't understand and most of this is not currently relevant to most of us.

I think most of us are interested in 1080p24i and 1080p24p. Oh, and first, perhaps you should explain the difference between 1080p60 and 1080p24. I am not sure, but perhaps 1080p60 has 60 frames per second and 1080p24 has 24 frames per second. If so, then it really helps to mention that, since most people are not familiar with that. If I am wrong, then I think it is even more importatn to explain the difference. I do know that i is interlaced and p is progressive. So on the subject of 1080p24, what is the difference between interlaced and progressive? As far as I know, they both have the same data, except interlaced does not send the data sequentially and progressive does. If that is true, however, then I don't understand the advantage of using interlaced instead of progressive. Isn't interlaced only for support of older CRTs?

KenAF

@SamRay wrote:
@KenAF wrote:
What you've stated above is a common misconception. While a 1080p60 signal represents twice as much information, and would therefore require roughly twice as much bandwidth, the same is not true of 1080p24.
Thank you for your extensive detailed explanation, but I expect that most of us won't understand and most of this is not currently relevant to most of us.
I think most of us are interested in 1080p24i and 1080p24p. Oh, and first, perhaps you should explain the difference between 1080p60 and 1080p24. I am not sure, but perhaps 1080p60 has 60 frames per second and 1080p24 has 24 frames per second. If so, then it really helps to mention that, since most people are not familiar with that. If I am wrong, then I think it is even more importatn to explain the difference. I do know that i is interlaced and p is progressive. So on the subject of 1080p24, what is the difference between interlaced and progressive? As far as I know, they both have the same data, except interlaced does not send the data sequentially and progressive does. If that is true, however, then I don't understand the advantage of using interlaced instead of progressive. Isn't interlaced only for support of older CRTs?

You're right, 60p (or p60) refers to 60 progressive frames per second and 24p (or p24) refers to 24 progressive frames per second.

Every consumer 1080p TV outputs to its screen at 60 frames per second, or 1080p60. But there is no source of 1080p60 content. There's no 1080p60 content on TV, none in the theater, and none on any form of high-definition disk. There are very few cameras that can acquire in 1080p60, and they cost $$$$$, so nobody uses them.

If there is no 60p material, what do we display on our TVs? We display 24p content and high-definition video.

Movies and series are "filmed" at 24 frames per second using traditional film or a high-definition camera running in 24p mode. Film-sources are telecined -- i.e. converted -- to digital at 1080p24 resolution. Blu-ray disks store this 1080p24 source directly on the disk. To display this 24p material on your TV at 60 frames per second, the first frame is repeated twice, the next frame is repeated three times, the next frame is repeated twice, the next frame is repeated three times, and so on and so forth. Repeating some frames more than others produces an effect called judder; as Americans, we are accustomed to this because we've had it for the last 50 years with NTSC.

High-definition video on CBS and NBC -- such as news broadcasts and live sporting events -- is acquired in native 1080i60. This is not the same as 30 frames per second, nor is it the same as 60 frames per second. It is 60 unique interlaced 1920x540 fields each acquired 1/60th of a second apart. A field is not a full frame; it's every other line of a frame. If there is no movement whatsoever in the picture, these 60 fields fit together to form a perfect 1080p30 image; unfortunately, there is almost always some movement in the picture, so the fields do not fit together.

The first 1080p TVs on the market created 60p output from the interlaced signal through a process called "bobbing." They essentially created a frame from a 1920x540 interlaced field, then it created the next frame from the next 1920x540 field, and so on. These TVs weren't providing 1920x1080p resolution at 60 frames per second, they were providing 1920x540p resolution at 60 frames per second. At some point, you may have heard someone refer to 1080i as 540p; that's where it came from.

Over the years, interlace -> progressive algorithms have become far more sophisticated. Now, most consumer 1080p displays do something called motion-adaptive video deinterlace. They compare multiple sequential interlaced fields and look for places where they align (i.e. where there was no movement in the image in the last 1/60th second). They match up the parts of the picture that align, and they interpolate (i.e. average) the parts of the picture that do not. The result is a 1080p60 signal, which offers excellent detail in the parts of the image that did not move, and less detail in the parts of the image that did move. Displays with better video processors do a better job at finding the parts the image that align, so less interpolation (averaging) is necessary. The result is that some displays provide more detail (less blurriness) in the parts of the picture with movement.

Back to the subject of 24p...As I noted in the prior post, to send 24p content in a 1080i60 signal, broadcasters split each of the 24 progressive frames into two interlaced fields. The fields are displayed in a repeating 2/3 sequence...two interlaced fields for one frame, then three interlaced fields (with a repeat) for the next frame, then two interlaced fields for the next frame, then three interlaced fields of the next frame (with a repeat)...in order to create a 1080i60 signal from 48 unique interlaced fields. The extra twelve interlaced fields (60 vs 48) are aren't actually sent down the cable, they are created by the STB/DVR's decoder in response to a bit that tells it to repeat certain fields. Displays that perform 24p detection do it by looking for these repeated / duplicated fields (otherwise known as 2/3 cadence detection).

On a typical 1080p display without 24p detection, this content is treated just like the native 1080i60 video mentioned earlier; it's treated as if it were 60 unique fields per second rather than 48 halves to 24 frames. The display uses motion-adaptive deinterlace to align parts of the the fields with no motion, and the rest is interpolated (averaged). Since there are two repeated fields of one frame, followed by three fields of the next frame, the fields don't line up. The result is that the display interpolates a lot of the motion.

If you think about it, interpolation (averaging) of the motion areas should be unnecessary, because all the information from the original 24 progressive frames is still present in the signal, just not in the correct order. True 24p detection (described in the previous post) eliminates the duplicate fields, so the 48 fields line up in the correct order, and you get the full resolution of the original source not just in the areas without motion, but in the areas with motion too. After the 48 interlaced fields are combined to recreate the original 24 progressive frames, these frames are repeated in a 2/3 sequence to provide a 60p signal for the TV.

Message Edited by KenAF on 03-23-2009 10:07 PM

wessock

@BigDaddyTees wrote:
A couple of weeks ago, I purchased a 32 Inch Sony Bravia 720p but yet 1080p compatible HDTV. I know my TV is capable of receiving 1080p signals as most HDTV’s are in the modern era. However, Fios via the HD DVR only broadcast up to a 1080I signal. My question is this, is there anyway to get a 1080p signal from Fios or will 1080I have to be settled for? What I mean is under video options on the set top box the options are 480I, 480P, 720P and 1080I there is no 1080P option.

Well to start with, which I didn't see anybody address yet, any source above 720p would be pointless on your TV anyway, by your description. 720P is the highest your panel can display. It will only down convert a 1080i/1080p signal to 720p resolution anyway. They word these descriptions in misleading ways on purpose to confuse buyers. But the short answer is, just set your box to 720p because your TV can't actually display anything higher. It might even be a better picture since your TV isn't down converting.

For your set it doesn't matter, but while there won't be direct broadcasts in 1080p for a long time, Verizon is close to offering 1080p On Demand content. Do a google search about it. It's already being tested with pricing and everything.

Mugs1080

Hello, I'm coming in late to the discussion and as a new FiOS user, wanted to at least comment on my initial experience with my HD signal. I will compare my RCN HD service using their latest dual tuner Motorola box (looks very similar to my new FiOS box-some connector differences). I will also limit my findings to HD only.

Let's take ABC's Lost for example. Believe it or not I still have RCN activated and have been A/B'ng the two signals/boxes for comparison. While the edge detail and chroma saturation are marginally but noticably better with FiOS, I have noticed lots of blurryness in lateral motion of subjects, to the point that I was starting to get a headache. I do not have this problem with the RCN signal. Eye fatigue is not a problem and the resolution and percevable bit rate appears to be close to that of the FiOS signal. Beard stuble, hair, skin pores.....are reproduced very well with either RCN or FiOS.

Compression artifacts, macroblocking, banding,etc., all seem very similar between them too. It's the motion blurryness that is killing my anticipated love affair with FiOS.....before it's even had a chance to take off. If I can't find a affordable solution, I'll seriously consider re-signing with RCN at least for the TV/Cable part.

Child Item