Outside of the obvious, (that older E* equipment is becoming more useless by the minute) , has anyone noticed any other differences? Either in resolution or overall quality?

(Honestly, I've not had the opportunity to check them out myself yet 'visually'. But I'm still curious from a technical perspective...)

Have they actually changed over yet?

Yes they have changed.

They look better too. Instead of 1280 x 1080 they are now 1440 x 1080 (which is what they were when VOOM was still a DBS service.) :)

Most of them have. At this moment, FILMFEST, ANIMA, RAVE, EQATOR and MONSTER are still in MPEG2.

I watched some RUSH HD, Gallery HD, and HDNews around 11 AM. They looked a lot better to me. RUSH HD showed a lot more detail. The sports highlights on HDNews were sharper with more detail.

voom, when a DBS service, was only broadcasting at 1440x1080? I thought they were full rez. I loved the service and was very sad to see it go.

Jamie

I remember Voom users describing "mosquito noise" when talking about the Voom originals back in the day. Perhaps that was part of the 1440x1080i issue.

I wonder how long until Dish converts all of the remaining MPEG2 HD channels over to MPEG4?

There's

Discovery HD Theater
ESPN-HD
HDNet
HDNet Movies
TNT-HD
HBO-HD
SHO-HD
PPV-HD

Its appears that they currently run 4 HD channels per TP with MPEG2. So

voom, when a DBS service, was only broadcasting at 1440x1080? I thought they were full rez. I loved the service and was very sad to see it go.

Jamie

I was a VOOM customer, too. Still the best HD pic I ever had.

Been w/ Comcast since VOOM closed. 2nd best HD pic I've had.

Wish VOOM could have stuck around. Really liked 'em. Only real beef with them was the fact that I needed to get HD locals OTA (which had never worked well for me) and the fact that they never fulfilled their promise of a 250gb HDDVR.

Yes they have changed.

They look better too. Instead of 1280 x 1080 they are now 1440 x 1080 (which is what they were when VOOM was still a DBS service.) :)

It's really a wee bit surprising how much difference just a little added resolution can make.

While a lot of the Voom and new channels have HD programming, some of it is up-converted SD, which still looks pretty good. Will the new 1440/1080 transmission help with the up-converted material? I guess we'll see.

Regards,
Fitzie

It's really a wee bit surprising how much difference just a little added resolution can make.

While a lot of the Voom and new channels have HD programming, some of it is up-converted SD, which still looks pretty good. Will the new 1440/1080 transmission help with the up-converted material? I guess we'll see.

Regards,
Fitzie

The resolution increase is unlikely to improve things - however the change in compression - if encoded directly from an HD-SDI (upconverted from SDI in the case of SD) feed - from MPEG2 to MPEG4 (presumably AVC/H264) will potentially reduce the visibility of compression artefacts.

Over here in the UK Sky One HD airs quite a few 16:9 SD shows upconverted to 16:9 HD (1920x1080 I think) in H264 - and they are in a different league to the same show simulcast on SD Sky One in 720x576 MPEG2 SD.

voom, when a DBS service, was only broadcasting at 1440x1080? I thought they were full rez. I loved the service and was very sad to see it go.

Jamie

I remember reading that Voom's STB was not capable of displaying an output of 1920x1080. At least that is what I recall. Does that sound right?

Can any provider's STB resolve 1920x1080? If none then what is the point of sending 1920x1080 if the STB will downrez it?

Also can the cameras that providers use to record the HD record in 1920x1080?

Just wondering.

:confused:

To me it's hard to tell if there is more detail or not, but I definitely notice less artifacting during motion and movement.

I remember reading that Voom's STB was not capable of displaying an output of 1920x1080. At least that is what I recall. Does that sound right?

Can any provider's STB resolve 1920x1080? If none then what is the point of sending 1920x1080 if the STB will downrez it?

Also can the cameras that providers use to record the HD record in 1920x1080?

Just wondering.

:confused:

Yes ,and Yes.

The Voom channels were indeed 1440x1080, and were mostly pretty good, although I remember near the end the macroblocking on ESPNHD wasn't that great.. =/

I remember reading that Voom's STB was not capable of displaying an output of 1920x1080. At least that is what I recall. Does that sound right?

Can any provider's STB resolve 1920x1080? If none then what is the point of sending 1920x1080 if the STB will downrez it?

Also can the cameras that providers use to record the HD record in 1920x1080?

Just wondering.

:confused:

Presumably using an HDMI connection (or DVI) rather than VGA or Component leaves you less at the mercy of DAC and output stage quality, and if a 1920x1080 broadcast resolution source is encoded at 1920x1080, and a high enough bit rate is used, then it is entirely possible for a set top box to output a 1920x1080 signal, just as it is for a BluRay player or HD-DVD player - which have a similar signal path (albeit with the optical media replacing the broadcast signal)

Not all STBs have sufficient memory and/or processing power to decode the higher frequency data. This has been documented with the SA8300 HD which seems to only be capable of resolving ~1300 pixels horizontally, at least on TimeWarner Cable in New York City.

Not all STBs have sufficient memory and/or processing power to decode the higher frequency data. This has been documented with the SA8300 HD which seems to only be capable of resolving ~1300 pixels horizontally, at least on TimeWarner Cable in New York City.

Was that from an HDMI/DVI output or analogue component/VGA ?

A distinct possibility is that poor quality analogue output stages (DACs, DAs etc.) are being used - rather than some limitation of the digital processing?

Was that from an HDMI/DVI output or analogue component/VGA ?

A distinct possibility is that poor quality analogue output stages (DACs, DAs etc.) are being used - rather than some limitation of the digital processing?
Here's an example (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8865051#post8865051) of someone on my Time Warner Cable NYC able to measure ~1335 lines maximum horizontal resolution using both digital and analog 8300HD cable converter outputs. (At least that's how I recall imws's descriptions.) Member imws used a Sony Ruby FP, which can resolve (from reviews) a full 1920 lines. My measurements here all refer to effective resolution (resolvable test pattern or sampled detail), not reformatting of 1920X1080 to lesser format resolutions.

When I similarly measured (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5175424#post5175424) HDNet's test pattern much earlier, max resolution was 1290 lines on NYC's TWC with a 8300HD's analog YPbPr outputs to a 9"-gun CRT RPTV (Philips 64PH9905). An earlier HDNet measurement with an older 8000HD showed only a dismal 890 lines max horiz. rez, and my measurement with a different converter brand and different NYC cable system showed 1335 lines. Someone with a 1366X768 plasma on my TWC system measured 1280 lines about the time I posted my first measurement. Others on various cable systems have reported ~1300 lines, too (HDMI vs. YPbPr unknown). And someone using HDMI on the mostly fiber Verizon FIOS measured ~1333 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10710973&&#post10710973) from HDNet with a new Motorola STB. The latter was with a 1080p RPTV reportedly not capable of full 1080p rez, although likely adequate for ~1300 line measurements. One AVSer on a smaller California cable system has reported nearly 1920 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8509731&&#post8509731) using HDMI from his 8300HD to a 1080p RPTV, although he updated his measurement recently, mentioning the involvement of a DVHS machine (?), too. -- John

EDIT: Regarding Blu-ray etc. players mentioned above delivering 1920 rez, yes someone reported (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=717346) a reading approximately full rez using Blu-ray disc included monoscope test patterns. Of course that's not the same as the typical 800--1100 line (equivalent) maximum effective resolution (see quotes/sublinks (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235)) measured for 1080/24p master tape telecines of films. And it's unclear just how much better effective resolutions of movies HD discs are now delivering, even with 4k downconversion to 1080 for some of them. Nearly double, assuming 800--1100 is accurate? Really doubt it, but would love to proved wrong with some updated spectrum analysis readings from HD discs.

Here's an example (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8865051#post8865051) of someone on my Time Warner Cable NYC able to measure ~1335 lines maximum horizontal resolution using both digital and analog 8300HD cable converter outputs. (At least that's how I recall imws's descriptions.) Member imws used a Sony Ruby FP, which can resolve (from reviews) a full 1920 lines. My measurements here all refer to effective resolution (resolvable test pattern or sampled detail), not reformatting of 1920X1080 to lesser format resolutions.

When I similarly measured (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5175424#post5175424) HDNet's test pattern much earlier, max resolution was 1290 lines on NYC's TWC with a 8300HD's analog YPbPr outputs to a 9"-gun CRT RPTV (Philips 64PH9905). An earlier HDNet measurement with an older 8000HD showed only a dismal 890 lines max horiz. rez, and my measurement with a different converter brand and different NYC cable system showed 1335 lines. Someone with a 1366X768 plasma on my TWC system measured 1280 lines about the time I posted my first measurement. Others on various cable systems have reported ~1300 lines, too (HDMI vs. YPbPr unknown). And someone using HDMI on the mostly fiber Verizon FIOS measured ~1333 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10710973&&#post10710973) from HDNet with a new Motorola STB. The latter was with a 1080p RPTV reportedly not capable of full 1080p rez, although likely adequate for ~1300 line measurements. One AVSer on a smaller California cable system has reported nearly 1920 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8509731&&#post8509731) using HDMI from his 8300HD to a 1080p RPTV, although he updated his measurement recently, mentioning the involvement of a DVHS machine (?), too. -- John

EDIT: Regarding Blu-ray etc. players mentioned above delivering 1920 rez, yes someone reported (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=717346) a reading approximately full rez using Blu-ray disc included monoscope test patterns. Of course that's not the same as the typical 800--1100 line (equivalent) maximum effective resolution (see quotes/sublinks (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235)) measured for 1080/24p master tape telecines of films. And it's unclear just how much better effective resolutions of movies HD discs are now delivering, even with 4k downconversion to 1080 for some of them. Nearly double, assuming 800--1100 is accurate? Really doubt it, but would love to proved wrong with some updated spectrum analysis readings from HD discs.

Surely the only way of objectively measuring the performance of set top boxes and/or HD optical players - as opposed to the transmission system/mastering systems involved and source material - is to have control of the input source (i.e. MPEG2/4 encode a known source and modulate it yourself) and take the digital or analogue output and analyse it with decent test gear.

If you are taking an unknown broadcast source and measuring it subjectively by looking at it on a display you have too many variables for the test to be that reliable?

You can make an assessment - but it isn't a particularly reliable form of testing. Certainly I'd be wary of making any judgement of HF response of the set top box by viewing on a domestic display - even calibrated - as the HF response of the display is as much being tested as the source? (At HF levels just a small increase in sharpness/HF peaking will kill HF response potentially)

Various AVSers report ~1300 lines using HDNet's resolution wedges--for years as indicated above. The source and delivery chain, here at least, have always been considered potentially as part of the 'missing' effective resolution lines. HDNet in the past has delivered full 1920X1080 effective resolution test pattern wedges and may still be doing it. New postings would confirm it. HD disc readings from Blu-ray built-in test patterns only confirms those machines offer full 1920X1080 capability. AFAIK, HDNet is the only current source with wide enough distribution for estimates. More scientifically established testing would obviously be preferable. -- John

A friend of mine visited from the UK recently and he brought cap'd files from SkyOne HD on disk. He had the first epsiode from season 3 of LOST. It was 1920X1080, H.264, don't remember the bitrate or size. So I'm guessing SkyOne HD's delivery and STBs are capable of true HD.
I was amazed at how much better LOST appeared on SkyOne's 1080i broadcast verses ABC's 720p. In the opening recap sequence(previously on lost) the camera zooms from ground level to the Oceanic plane splitting apart in mid-air, the PQ difference was eye popping. You could see the fusalage breaking apart in sections and clearly make out the seats tumbling from the plane, the devil is definately in the details.

It seems that a lot of things are done better in Europe :)

A friend of mine visited from the UK recently and he brought cap'd files from SkyOne HD on disk. He had the first epsiode from season 3 of LOST. It was 1920X1080, H.264, don't remember the bitrate or size. So I'm guessing SkyOne HD's delivery and STBs are capable of true HD.


Yep - Sky HD set-top boxes (all made by Thomson currently) are equipped with HDMI outputs, and all European HDTVs sold with the "HD Ready" logo (which is the huge majority) all have at least one HDMI input. Most - if not all - of the Sky branded HD channels are broadcast at 1920x1080/50i H264 on the Sky HD platform. Therefore I would assume that a 1920x1080 source encoded correctly in H264 at the relatively high data rates currently in use in the UK would survive as 1920x1080 when delivered via the HDMI output.

Whether the component HD output of the Sky HD boxes is as good I don't know. (Originally Sky announced their boxes would be HDMI only for HD - but relented when a large number of early HD-adopters raised concerns, including those who had bought Sky branded plasmas with only Component HD inputs...)


I was amazed at how much better LOST appeared on SkyOne's 1080i broadcast verses ABC's 720p. In the opening recap sequence(previously on lost) the camera zooms from ground level to the Oceanic plane splitting apart in mid-air, the PQ difference was eye popping. You could see the fuselage breaking apart in sections and clearly make out the seats tumbling from the plane, the devil is definately in the details.

I would imagine that although Lost is an ABC show, and thus broadcast in 720p in the US, it is still likely to be shot and mastered in a manner that allows a 1080/24p master to be delivered (and played sped-up to 1080/25p for Europe)

AIUI only a relatively small number of 24p pre-recorded shows broadcast on the 720p networks in the US are actually produced in 720/24p (Arrested Development was a notable 720/24p origination ISTR - shot on Panasonic 720p Varicams for Fox?) Shows like Desperate Housewives and Lost are, AIUI, shot 1080/24p and downconverted to 720/24p (and broadcast 720/60p with 3:2 frame repetition) for ABC and Fox?

Channel Four in the UK broadcast Desperate Housewives in 1080/50i (from a 1080/24p sped-up source I assume) as part of their DVB-T OTA HD test in 2006.

It seems that a lot of things are done better in Europe :)

And some not at all :)

Here's something my brother in law told me about Dish/Voom yesterday and it has nothing to do with picture quality:

"We had Voom on 2 receivers for $26.99/month. That just jumped to $38, and will go to $48 in 10 months."

Needless to say he's not pleased and will probably drop Voom when it goes up to $48.

Here's something my brother in law told me about Dish/Voom yesterday and it has nothing to do with picture quality:

"We had Voom on 2 receivers for $26.99/month. That just jumped to $38, and will go to $48 in 10 months."

Needless to say he's not pleased and will probably drop Voom when it goes up to $48.

Kind of disingenuous commetary. Your brother is law is getting more channels for that 38 dollars than he did with Voom, plus SD channels. Really not an apples to apples comparison.

He would have had $10 HD, $5 Voom, $6 Access Fee and $5 for second box. It should be $50 for the current entry package with voom minus a $10 discount for 10 months, not sure how he got it down to 38. Add in another $6 fee for a second ViP HD box.

There's a suggestion of mixing concepts of 'true' 1920X1080, reformatted 1080i (to, say, 1440X1080), and the effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) of a full 1920X1080i format (max resolvable detail).

The ~1300-line resolution reported for many STBs outlined just above refers to effective resolution from HDNet's 1920X1080i converging-line test pattern. It doesn't mean the 1920X1080 test patterns have been reformatted like DirecTV's HDLite (1280X1080).

Might call HDNet's test-pattern signal 'true' 1080i to distinguish it from HDLite or upconverted 480i movies mislabeled as HDTV. But suspect we're likely to see only non-sampled test patterns as 'true' and full 1920X1080 for some time. To deliver resolvable detail out to 1920 lines maximum effective resolution, matching the format horizontal resolution, a movie theoretically should be sampled at about double (~4k) resolution, then downconverted to 1920X1080. Actually, some HD-disc movies, and those delivered by other sources, are derived from 4k formats; searching the imdb.com technical section for "4k" provides a list. Seems doubtful, however, that 4k downconversions have nearly doubled movie effective resolutions to 'true' 1920X1080--if you assume most 1080/24p master tapes have beendelivering only 800--1100 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235). -- John

Seems doubtful, however, that 4k downconversions have nearly doubled movie effective resolutions to 'true' 1920X1080--if you assume most 1080/24p master tapes have beendelivering only 800--1100 lines (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9314235&&#post9314235). -- John

Humm ... eeenteresting. So maybe my "ancient" (5yr old, component only) CRT RPTV isn't doing so bad after all. :) I've been getting a sharp cutoff at about 1150 lines on both the HDNet pattern (via D*) and from the Sony BD 7669 pattern. Good enough to keep saving that $2000+ for awhile? ;) :D

Yep - Sky HD set-top boxes (all made by Thomson currently) are equipped with HDMI outputs, and all European HDTVs sold with the "HD Ready" logo (which is the huge majority) all have at least one HDMI input. Most - if not all - of the Sky branded HD channels are broadcast at 1920x1080/50i H264 on the Sky HD platform. Therefore I would assume that a 1920x1080 source encoded correctly in H264 at the relatively high data rates currently in use in the UK would survive as 1920x1080 when delivered via the HDMI output.

AFAIK, everything here encoded and delivered 1920X1080i (MPEG-2/4) also survives without format change, too, whether viewed via HDMI or component video. Wouldn't expect the HD video format to change, of course, although the final effective resolution (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5667245&&#post5667245) (resolvable detail) of motion video wouldn't be 1920X1080--unless something remarkable, contrary to standard video sampling/filtering, is going on. :-)

Too bad Sky or the BBC doesn't transmit resolution-wedge or burst test patterns to determine if MPEG4, and/or the transmission path, or European STBs trim back effective resolution--similar to widespread reductions of HDNet's presumed full-resolution 1920X1080i test pattern wedges to ~1300 lines instead of ~1920 lines here. Displays that can't resolve 1920X1080 test patterns, of course, won't show full resolution, but various suitable full-resolution displays here also show ~1300 lines--with just one report (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8509731&&#post8509731), AFAIK, of ~1920 lines from HDNet.

Maybe the BBC can publish some effective resolution reports, based on spectrum analysis, of sampled motion video instead of non-sampled test patterns, too? The only such non-published study here was about three years ago; just suggested (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11352367#post11352367) that an update, factoring in the newer HD-disc effective resolutions, would be nice to see. -- John