Slashdot Mirror
HD DirecTiVo And Other CES Treats
Gadget Guy writes "The CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) has announced their CES (Consumer Electronics Show) Innovations 2004 winners. Within is a shot of the new Hughes HD DirecTiVo with some new LED's on the front including "Temp" for those sure to be occurring overheats. The surprise winners were the Motorola IM Free with no backlight along with it's "left un-justified" keyboard and the color SideKick who's black and white cousin was debuted at the 2003 CES show. Plus check out this Samsung DLP TV! Stealth bomber cool!"
Wasn't one of the cool promises of a flat plasma TV that we could hang them on the wall with little wasted space? Not have to ballance them on top of a space wasting cousing of R2-D2? Who in the world wants this TV with it's queer makeover and awkward space wasting base?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Um, you can do a season pass for all channels. Just create a wishlist item for the title of the show and it will record it on every channel.
So make a wishlist for "Sex and the City" or Seinfeld and it will record the episode from all the channels.
720p gives you 60 frames per second. 1080 gives you 60 frames per second, but, interlaced (30 half frames, interlaces together to make 60 total frames). You watch The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King at the theater. You sit in awe. 24 Frames Per Second. Now, you think that the LotR is smoooooth. But you say that 1080i isn't? Your mind sees approximately 22-30 frames per second. This is why a 1080i is indistiguishable, frame rate wise, from 720p. Very very very very few people can see the difference.
"Your mind sees approximately 22-30 frames per second." - I hope you mean motion blured frames per second, since otherwise you can easily see the difference between 30fps and 60 fps and up to ~72fps.
again this untruth - people see much more than 30 fps. It's just that ~24 fps is sufficient to convey motion to the brain. You're just wrong about the diff b/t 1080and720 - the resolution is better (sharper), interlaced or not.
Bullshit. Modern science has not found the upper limit that the eye can distinguish. I found a nice link simply by searching Google, so you can do the research yourself about what information is out there.
Given various different tricks (motion blur, mostly), your eyes only really need 18fps to determine motion, but even at higher frame rates you'll still be able to detect flicker and jerkiness. Next time you watch Return of the King, look for any long horizontal pans (caveat: I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if there are any good examples in the movie). If the pan is fast enough, you're going to see flicker and jerkiness. This is also why you need a much higher frame rate for video games, because proper motion blur is computationally expensive and current hardware still can't handle it and everything else while maintaining a smooth rate (the other issue in trying for the highest possible frame rate is that games measure averages, so a 30fps average means that the rate will drop below 30fps. A locked 30fps, like many consoles games do, guarantees the game will not drop below 30fps at the cost of visual quality). Look out of the corner of your eye at your computer screen. If you're using a CRT, you're going to be able to see flicker even if you're running a higher refresh rate (some people can't detect it past 85Hz or so, but most people can). Work in an office with all flourescent lighting, and see how long it takes you to get a headache. You may not physically see the flicker, but your eyes do and the headache is caused by strain because of it.
Between 480i and 480p, I can certainly tell a difference in refresh rate. Turn off progressive scan output on your DVD player, watch a scene, and turn it back on, or play with the progressive settings in the DVD player setup. If you can't tell a difference, you're a rare person, not the average. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean that other people can't either.
The Taz I looks to be a better buy at $379 (60GBs) than the Archos AV380 (80GBs), which is selling for $899!
. html
Taz I:
http://www.tightsystems.com/gift.htm
Archose AV380:
http://www.archos.com/products/prw_500570
The only noticeable difference I see is that the Archose supports xVid while the Taz doesn't. However they both support Divx.
I'm almost sold... Just wish the product was already available today.
eTrade SUCKS
Will an HDTV DirecTivo function exactly as my current original-generation Tivo in terms of letting me watch any show I recorded, i.e., are these affected by the broadcast flag stuff? Will it provide component video outputs and an optical audio output such I can watch those programs on the HDTV I bought three years ago?
If the answer is yes, I'll certainly buy one.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Actually 24fps isn't all that smooth. I can think of a few shots in ALL the Lord of the Rings movies - usually vertical pans or other rapid tracking shots - that looked very choppy. Not a problem on DVD, but in the theater, the whole damn screen seems to flash, as essentially the whole frame changes 24 times a second.
Fast-moving objects at 24fps don't always "move" fluidly across the cinema screen, all too often you get 24 flickery copies of the object, because your eyes are not quite tracking the motion, you're seeing the object blink out at one location and blink in at another. Now, in a rapid camera pan, especially a vertical one where you're trying to cover more "ground" with the narrow aspect of the frame, you get 24 flickery copies of the WHOLE FRAME stuttering up the screen. It looks unsteady or "blurry" to the eye, though every frame may be razor-sharp.
We may only "see" at 22-30fps, but we are affected by problems well beyond that, whether it be fluorescent lights about to conk out, or monitors that "only" refesh at 75hz. For motion to appear smooth and comfortable we'd really have to get to the point of having 120fps video.
~ radiographite: art by john shepard
The new HD DirecTivo will have dual OTA tuners and dual Satellite tuners, meaning you can be recording up to 3 HD/SD programs while watching another one live. The HD is 250GB and will support all HD as well as SD output formats. The unit has recently entered Beta testing and hopefully will appear on store shelves soon. Check AVSForum for more info.
DirecTV HDTV actually delivers quite a good image. Flipping between the same game on Sunday Ticket HD on DTV and CBS-HD OTA reveals some artifacts being introduced occassionally from further compression but still delivers a good image that will only get better as more satellites get in the sky. Other channels such as ESPN-HD (when they are actually showing HD) and Discovery HD look excellent compared to full bitrate OTA channels.
http://www.s4biturbo.com/
So many bad assumptions.
.7). This means a 1080i image is about 810 lines of perceived vertical resolution.
.5. This means that the content of the video is moving so quickly that the next field of video samples do not line up at all with the previous ones and therefore add now new resolution content. For sports footage this means you are comparing 540 vertical lines (out of 1080i) to the REAL 720 samples at 60 Frame.
First. Everyone needs to read up on the kell factor to understand the impact that interlace video has on human perception of resolution.
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/kell.htm
For those of you too lazy to read, it is generally accepted in the broadcast industry that interlace video (1080i, 480i) conveys about 70-75% of the total available vertical resolution (kell factor of
This is IF the compression system in use is not filtering the overall frequency response to some even lower value.
All of the ATSC interlace modes run at 60 fields not 60 frames. (discounting drop frame modes) In interlace video there are only 30 frames of data which are spread out over 60 samples in time. Some people in the industry would argue that the kell factor for fast moving sports footage, especially panning footage such as car or bicycle races has a vertical resolution or kell factor of only
Sony spent a LOT of money testing human perception and found out that the human eye cannot tell the difference between 1334 horizontal samples of resolution and 1920 samples when the viewer is seated at normal theater viewing distances. Of course its this same logic that says people can't hear anything above 20Khz. YMMV. The upshot of this is that the highest quality sampling available on compressed HD equipment is around 1440 horizontal pixels. Panasonic would argue that they have 1920 samples but their compression is so high that the effective frequency response on moving video is not nearly that.
720P is far superior to 1080i for a number of reasons, all of which must be considered.
1. Most televisions are not capable of true 1920 resolution. In fact, most broadcast monitor engineers would argue that none of them are. Keep in mind that there is a big difference between being 1920 ready or capable and having the electronics to drive a true, stable, jitter free 1920 image.
720p solves this because it is a much easier resolution to drive on consumer displays and therefore there is less box induced artifacting (scaling, motion interpolation, etc).
This means that if YOUR televisions native resolution is less than 1920 it will have to format convert the video down to whatever your native resolution is. Chances are that your televisions native display technology is progressive scan (DLP, LCOS, LCD, etc) so it will also be frame rate converting at the same time. Going from an interlace format to a progressive format is not a simple task. Cheap televisions (or STBs) will do simple field integration or bob/weave as it is known in the consumer world ('vertical/temporal mesh' to the industry). Better televisions will try to do motion adaptive de-interlacing. This is any set driven by Faroujda, Sage, Genesis electronics (all owned by Genesis). I suppose that there will be some sets that will attempt motion compensated de-interlacing but consider that the cheapest motion compensated stand alone box out there is about $100K and ask yourself if you are really getting what you are paying for. I digress. The point is that it is much easier for your television to convert 720p to 1080i than the other way around, or even better for it to just accept the 720p signal and display it natively.
Toss in the fact that television stations are all broadcasting at different HD resolutions, your STB (set top box whether satellite or cable) has its own native processing capabilites (or necessities) and your television has its own limitations and you end up with some very ugly scenarios. The worst of which is a 720P->1080i->
Dirty little secret eh? My Hughes dual tuner recording 2 shows and playing back another would like to talk to you. Stop spreading FUD. While overheats do happen, they are rare. I've had a series 1 I bought 3 months after initial launch, and a Hughes dual tuner, and they both have performed perfectly.
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
There is one other important element in how "fast" the human eye sees: Where you are looking. The receptors in the certer of the eye respond much more slowly than the receptors on the edges; however, the center of the eye has much greater resolution. The reason for this is that you need detail for subjects you are actually looking at, and you need speed in your peripheral vision to see things sneaking up or being throw at you.
:)
I've played with this effect when configuring monitors before. Set the vertical refresh to something painfully slow, then try looking at it out of the corner of your eye. Ouch...
So, I would suspect that on really large screens (ie movie theaters) the refresh rate is more critical than on smaller screens.
Me? I own a plain old low-def 24" TV, so this is all moot for me.
So, I wonder what pets think of our modern video and audio systems?
Pets probably think modern video and audio systems don't smell very interesting.
Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
About two years of Beta's now
And if you're currently participating in a beta then you're breaking your NDA. For some reason, I doubt you're participating in the current beta though -- you'd have a clue then.
But, what is so special about the new Hughes DirecTivo?[...]other than HDTV. Ooo.. A piture that the Sony Tivo still kicks ass over.
First off, the make of the TiVo has absolutely zero impact on the PQ. They're all the same design and components.
That said, the big thing is HD. Your Sony can't do HD. Nor can any other TiVo on the market. This one can. And it'll beat the pants off of your Sony when it comes to PQ because of it. Oh, and it has component and DVI output, which your Sony doesn't. It'll even look better with SD material.
I havn't looked into DirecTV's specs about their broadcast of HDTV, but, I'm guessing it's highly compressed
You're right. You haven't looked into it. DirecTV is now broadcasting all of its HD channels at full bitrate. They were previously doing some bit combing to reduce the bitrate to ~12 Mbps, but they have apparantly stopped that and now HD channels are broadcast at up to 21 Mbps.
How much more bandwidth can you get out of older comm. satelitte? HDTV has about 4x the number of pixels over normal broadcast. You can't support both without giving up something.
The bandwidth is static. They could allocate all of the bandwidth on a transponder to HD -- they'd just carry fewer channels on that transponder. The more HD channels they put on a bird the fewer SD channels they can broadcast (which basically affects how many locals they can broadcast; all the major channels are on the 101 bird anyway. HD is on the 110 and 119 birds). Oh, and they have a new bird going active in January. It'll have enough bandwidth to transmit every single channel they carry in HD. Including the locals. All of the m. It's unknown what they're going to use the new bird for yet, except that it will be HD related.
Oh, other new things about the HD DirecTiVo? Four tuners. Two HD DirecTV and two ATSC. You'll only be able to record from two at a time, but you won't have to worry about whether the signal is coming in OTA or DBS.
There was a report on the news about cats and tv. They were distinguishing why some cats watch and some cats do not watch.
The answer? The cats that watch TV have slower brains then the cats that do not watch TV. They cannot distinguish that TV is not real.
I'm guessing the same is true for dogs. Especially in regards to sound. It's interesting that some dogs can distinguish that hearing a doorbell or dog bark on TV is fake and some dogs cannot. So, higher quality audio and video probably means that in the end, more pets will watch and listen.
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
But, the recent approval of the sale of DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch and News Corp could portend some bad news for Tivo. Murdoch already owns a company that produces DVR units, and the industry speculation is that he will dump Tivo and replace it with his own DVR.
This is the last thing I want to see, as I love the features of my Tivo and hate the idea of Tivo (the company) being squished by Murdoch's mega conglomerate. Stay tuned...
The problem with your position on 1080i is that many of your 720p "advantages" are due to the limits of today's technology.
- Today's sets can't show full 1920
- Today's cameras can't shoot full 1920
- Interlaced to progressive conversion is expensive
- Digitizing progressive is easier
While these statements are true today, in 5 years these problems will be be solved. They are technology limits.
Approximating the recovery of interlaced fields is simply a technology problem, not a mathematical limit. We throw away these fields as a compression technique, to compliment the other techniques used in MPEG2. Recovering an approximation should be as accepted and accurate as the color-depth recovery that we employ with JPEG and MPEG decompression filtering.
What won't change is that at the same bit-rate, the higher resolution interlaced fields have the potential to look sharper than the lower resolution progressive frames.
Good motion compensated de-interlacing can make interlaced fields look smooth, and these systems will be cheap enough to include in every set in 5 to 10 years. As far as I know, no such solution exists to enhance the lack of resolution. (Yes, I know sharpness filters exists, but the results are poor, and they are not typically sought as a solution to video problems. Maybe these will get better too, but I doubt it.)
I'm sure most people would agree that if we had been stuck with something like 320p vs. 480i for NTSC, that we would have been living with poorer quality images for the last two decades, once image processing had reached the limits of the format.
Fortunately, ATSC wisely accomodates multiple formats.
Dave
P.S. Most of today's sets are not natively progressive scan, but are still built with tubes. I agree this is rapidly changing, but tubes still have the picture quality edge. I'm betting on nano-tube cathode displays as the best replacement for direct-view tubes.