Everyone knows the holy grail of video today is 1080p60, but not many realize there is almost no 1080p60 to be found. Almost all Blu-ray Discs are 1080p at 24fps or maybe 1080p at 30 and most broadcast TV is 1080i60, which when
properly de-interlaced is equivalent to 1080p30. What most don't know is why not, and the reason probably isn't what you think. Most would say it is the bandwidth, there simply isn't enough of it for 1080i, how could you possible do 1080p? But that isn't really the case and the new Motorola SE-6000 Multi-Encoder proves why (SE-5100 pictured above). This new piece of gear -- that you need to start praying your favorite channel buys -- can actually enable a
broadcaster to send out honestest to goodness 1080p using the same number of bits as 1080i60 by using
H.264 instead of
MPEG-2. So in other words, assuming all the equipment in between this new guy and your TV or set-top can handle it, it is technologically possible for us to get true 1080p60 at home. We can dream, right?
posted Sep 22nd 2009 2:23PM
tv_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
NaterGator @ Sep 22nd 2009 2:34PM
Honestly I'd rather see devices using H.264 to encode 1080i60 so we don't have to deal with terrible compression artifacts and macroblocking. The push to have the most HD channels has meant my quality-per-channel on Cox cable is getting pretty intolerable, and I don't care if the source feed is interlaced or progressive, 30 or 60 fps... I want less visible compression!
jon @ Sep 23rd 2009 9:44PM
+1000
I'm happy with 1080i, I'm not happy with the 5-10mbps Comcast allots to it's HD channels.
Loban @ Sep 24th 2009 4:56PM
Along the same lines, I'd be more happy with uncompressed 720p than compressed up the yin yang 1080p. I sit 10 to 12 feet back from my 50". I can't tell the difference anyway. But I can definitely see the freaking compression artifacts.
Charles @ Sep 22nd 2009 2:41PM
Actually, progressively scanned video is easier to compress, and that, coupled with H.264 encoding over MPEG-2, definitely make this feasible to do.
mlody11 @ Sep 22nd 2009 2:54PM
Well, I see how this can help cable and satellite but we're kinda out of luck on the over the air stuff as ATSC uses mpeg. Bummer.
TRT @ Sep 22nd 2009 3:30PM
What's the point of complaining about broadcast gear we'll never see. We are getting 2 apples. The engadged article is about 4 apples we will never get....and; What comments follow? 8 apples or we'll just live with the 2 apples....Thanks anyway, though! I suspect that if Motorola had provided 8 apples, the comments would have trashed the product and demanded 16 apples. Never satisfied......And that's the whole McGilla!
Aaron @ Sep 22nd 2009 3:47PM
Um, what mlody11 said. ATSC doesn't support 1080p/60, so "1080p broadcast" as the headline implies is not in the cards.
This could be used to send 1080p/60 over cable/fiber lines, but there is no broadcast spec in North America that uses h.264, so any broadcaster who tries would be violating their FCC license.
Ben @ Sep 22nd 2009 3:49PM
Actually ATSC does support H.264, but you are right, no 1080p60. Cable channels could broadcast either over cable though.
Rob @ Sep 22nd 2009 5:37PM
Why do we need 1080p/60 broadcasts when the cameras that are used to record the TV shows are mostly 1080p/24 or still use film (at 24fps)?
The cameras are not recording at 1080p/60. They record 1080p/24, 1080p/30, 1080i/60 and 720p/60, but not 1080p/60, so why get excited over potential 1080p/60 broadcasts?
Ben @ Sep 22nd 2009 5:37PM
Honestly I want both. I want 1080p60 for sports and 1080p24 for shows that are filmed.
chumley @ Sep 22nd 2009 6:05PM
"Everyone knows the holly grail of video today is 1080p60"
I disagree. Nobody knows what the "holly grail" is.
Richard @ Sep 22nd 2009 6:38PM
It won't really make a improve consider many of those content are just stretch out and no native hd first place.
Charles @ Sep 22nd 2009 8:24PM
You guys really need to re-read this article. This is for CABLE systems, not OTA.
Craig @ Sep 22nd 2009 11:59PM
"most broadcast TV is 1080i60, which when properly de-interlaced is equivalent to 1080p30"
Not quite. Even 1080/60i can convey smooth 60Hz motion, ie 60 unique pictures per second. 30p is limited to 30. Thus even 60i can have smoother motion than 30p. For example, sport is 60 pictures per second, whether it's 1080/60i or 720/60p. Sports fans would scream if the frame rate was halved to 'only' 30 unique motion updates per second.
Also remember that displays at least double the 30p to 60 or more so there's no flicker.
Fern @ Sep 29th 2009 2:29PM
Flicker = interlace = bad (60i)
30p = progressive = good
Gliff @ Sep 22nd 2009 11:20PM
but can any current boxes display h.264 or 1080p?
sandfarmer @ Sep 23rd 2009 1:53AM
I can get 1080p off my DISH 722 receiver. This is when they make it available. Now it's mostly PPV, but for a while they did a special free offering, but it was a download to Internet connected receivers only, of A&E's The Beast with Patrick Swayze. I must say on my 1080p20/30/60 DLP it was Beautiful. I rented a couple of PPV @ 1080p last Summer and it looked great on all my TV's broadcast throughout the house from the internal modulator on the box.
I just figure that the broadcasters are going to try to get away with as little as long as they can. Many haven't moved the DOGs for 16:9 yet, so . . . .
demon @ Sep 23rd 2009 10:22AM
My TiVo could with a software update; its video decoder chip already handles H.264 (and VC-1, not that they'd be using it...). I believe the new Moto DCX-series boxes have H.264 decoding functionality as well. Cablecos will definitely have to upgrade some legacy boxes though...
Jeremey @ Sep 23rd 2009 4:27PM
You say when they make it available. There will never be true 1080P over satellite. If you understood compression or the data capabilities of different frequencies, you wouldn't even speak. If 1080P is EVER released over the satellite airways, it is going to be super compressed. The only way you're getting it now is by downloading it over the internet, and even THEN it's extremely compressed. And the only way you viewed 1080P to every TV in your house was if every box was connected to the internet and you downloaded it to every box in your house, or you have a high-end HDMI distribution block in one room, because you can't distribute HD over the secondary RF output or your "internal modulator". Anyone else want this guy? lol
rendezvous65 @ Sep 23rd 2009 10:37PM
The Broadcom 7410 and 7420 can do 1080p60. It can even deinterlace 1080i60 to 1080p60 if your TV can handle it.
Andy @ Sep 24th 2009 4:07AM
60fps content running at 1080i is not equivalent to 1080p30, it's slightly better quality, as it is visually double the frame rate, looking much smoother (assuming the TV does proper 1080i60 - to -1080p60 deinterlacing like it should)
Also film content running at 1080i60 is identical to film content running at 1080p24 with a good inverse telecine filter (which mos good TVs nowadays have)
The main benefit to having 1080p capable broadcasting would be mainly sports, but some other shows like news, game shows and reality shows also use 60fps video. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure absolutely no-one films in 1080p60. Even most 720p60 broadcasts seem to be deinterlaced from 1080i60 to 1080p60, then downscaled to 720p60.
sweetnbeefy @ Sep 24th 2009 3:45PM
This post is very misleading. It makes it sound like all a broadcaster has to do to get 1080/60p video is buy this box. When in reality they would first have to;
A. Produce content in 1080/60p to make it worth converting to in the first place.
B. Re-build their entire plant to accommodate 1080/60p.
C. Convert to H.264 compression. (using the mentioned box or any other manufacture's)
D. Replace EVERY decoder at EVERY cable headend in the country.
While the box in this post may be relatively cheap the rest the steps necessary to to make the switch are not.
J @ Oct 30th 2009 2:37PM
And I thought that knowing the US, and how up-to-date they are on the latest technology, the'd have plenty of 1080p broadcasts by now....