Sky HD is there!

watty

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/07/geek_tv_sky_tv_here/

ro2

I preregistered and got a call from Sky this afternoon. It's €449 for the box and €14.99 a month. Installations start on 22nd May.

byte

Yup, that's the information I got too. Tis a bit pricey for my liking. I'd expect prices to drop to 300eur next year (this is my opinion).

ro2

It seemed so much cheaper when the prices were in pounds

crosstownk

byte wrote:

Yup, that's the information I got too. Tis a bit pricey for my liking. I'd expect prices to drop to 300eur next year (this is my opinion).

I'd say your right - it may even drop more (hopefully;) )

ffocused

how many of you got a call from Sky about HD?

I registered last year and have not heard from them yet, i called them last Friday and after nearly half an hour of getting transferred to the 'relevent dept' i was finally put through to the 'HD Dept' and was told that in Ireland we cannot get it yet until all UK pre-registrations have been allocated.

I want to get it in for the world cup so want to get it ordered asap

watty

You don't need Sky HD for world cup. You can buy any Satellite HD receiver. The BBC will be showing Wimbleton and World cup in HD. You do need at least 37", preferably 48" or bigger true HD screen with HDMI to view, otherwise you are as well off with an 80 Euro HD receiver and BBC or regular Sky digibox.

many "HD Ready" TVs are not native HD Resolution but Computer 1024 x 768 and "rescale" the image to fit. The results are little better than watching a good 32" CRT. Some LCD "HD Ready" sets are actually poorer picture than many decent 32" WS CRT TVs.

YoYOPowder

watty wrote:

many "HD Ready" TVs are not native HD Resolution but Computer 1024 x 768 and "rescale" the image to fit. The results are little better than watching a good 32" CRT.

True, only in that they are 1024x768 and not native. Yes they must rescale, but picture on a Panny 42" Plasma is nothing short of excellent, so is a Pioneer, LG and some other brands. All are 1024x768. Rescaling is a fact of life. It doesn't mean they will be little better than a 32" CRT. Granted a rubbish brand, with rubbish technology you might be correct. But you can get Rubbish LCD's that are native HD also. The statement is a little misleading, that's all.

ffocused

i know i dont need a skyhd box for the world cup, but i am not going to spend a few hundred euro on a box that will only give me 1 channel, when i can get a sky hd box with sky sports/sky one/box office all in HD for roughly the same price.

I have a 37" LG lcd with 1366x768 resolution and a HDMI input and respect Watty's opinion that most current HD ready tvs are s***e but a good picture is a very subjective thing.
I have a HTPC connected to the tv and the HD clips that i have downloaded look far superior to the SD pictures from sky and the progressive scan dvd pictures from the component input.

ro2

ffocused wrote:

how many of you got a call from Sky about HD?

I registered last year and have not heard from them yet, i called them last Friday and after nearly half an hour of getting transferred to the 'relevent dept' i was finally put through to the 'HD Dept' and was told that in Ireland we cannot get it yet until all UK pre-registrations have been allocated.

I want to get it in for the world cup so want to get it ordered asap

You had to pre-order on the website and pay the £30 before you get a call. You should be able to order it directly from Sky on Wednesday.

I read on another forum that the BBC broadcasts will initially be in DVB-S so you could watch the World Cup using a Skystar 2 with your PC. They only cost about €50.

byte

You would need a very high-spec PC to watch HD signals using a Skystar 2. Though, if you've a decent enough PC, it's surely possible.

I must get Astra2 hooked up to my Skystar2 to see how well/bad it copes!

watty

It may not be easily possible. The HD tests were MPEG2, that needed a 3GHz PC do go decently. The new HD services as BBC etc are MPEG4 at the typical 1080i it needs maybe 4Ghz and good FSB speed. Sat cards for the new HD services are like Skystar 1 concept, they have a DSP chip for MPEG2 and MPEG4.

Some Nivida Graphics cards (6800 I think) can do the the MPEG4, but a later more expensive one doesn't do the required MPEG4 flavour. There are different kinds of MPEG4 now.

My son's fairly new 2.5Ghz class AMD PC can't reliably play HDTV MPEG4 video from disk. It drops hugely if there is much movement or scene change.

rogue-entity

I would say you would need a MPEG2/4 decoder board to reliably watch HDTV on a PC. But, why are so many of you all rushing to get HDTVs and HDTV receivers/SKY HD just for the world cup, surely it will be broadcast on "normal" TV for the rest of us.

watty

I 100% agree, Mr. rouge-entity. On less than a 37" WS TV only 5% to 10% of folks will be able to see difference. On a 28" WS almost no-one, unless they are 2ft from screen can see the difference.

If you watching a 60" screen in a club or pub, but more than 2 times your normal viewing distance (say 16' / 4.5m away) then it is same as watching a 30" screen and you get no advantage from HDTV.

ambro25

It don't take a genius to figure out that SKY are capitalizing on the World Cup to shift subscriptions at premium prices - watch the prices tumble after the WC... I can already see them from here

mossym

watty wrote:

I 100% agree, Mr. rouge-entity. On less than a 37" WS TV only 5% to 10% of folks will be able to see difference. On a 28" WS almost no-one, unless they are 2ft from screen can see the difference.

If you watching a 60" screen in a club or pub, but more than 2 times your normal viewing distance (say 16' / 4.5m away) then it is same as watching a 30" screen and you get no advantage from HDTV.

you're kidding right? so from 15 ft away on a 60 inch screen, hdtv looks the same as standard definition on a 30inch screen?

i've had hdtv(american) for 2years on a 48inch tv, believe me you can tell the difference a lot farther away than that. I just moved back to ireland, but i had hdtv for the two years before that. I know ntsc is rubbish, but there is still a world of difference between any pal signal i've seen here on ANY size tv and the hdtv we were getting...it makes me wonder what hi-def broadcasts you've seen..i'm not doubting what you say, just that the hidef you saw was as good as it can be

watty

It is simple geometry.


If you are close to TV you see the lack of detail in PAL / DVD / DVB.

720 line HD is only a similar amount better than DVB /DVD 720 x 576 Line (PAL flavour) than that is than Analog NTSC (640x 480 line).

At 12ft on a 21" 4:3 TV, a well encoded VCD (384 x 388 line) looks as detailed as DVD on a 28" WS 16:9 TV at 16ft. At 8ft the DVD looks superior.

HDTV is for LARGE screens (37"min, ideally 48" / 60" ) in a average room. In a Pub / Club you need 100" to 150" screen to get advantage of HDTV as the viewing distance is 2 to 3 times the home viewing distance.

Of course many people in Ireland have misaligned Sky dishes giving blocky pictures, badly fed analog MMDS / Cable or Fringe reception RTE or defelctor. I have been in few homes where even DVD /TV is setup correctly. An HD LCD gives a poor SD picture as the rescaling blurs & artifacts the image, especially on commmon 1024 x 768 LCDs.

SD LCDs are generally very much poorer than even a 350 Euro CRT. You need to compare good native SD resolution with good native HD resolution screens, or you may be examining how well the screen can rescale & display non-native resolution.


I have a 20" CRT screen that can do 1600 x1200 pefectly and 2048 x 1540 not so well. At 10" distance the image quality is stunning and makes my best DVDs on 28" Living Room screen look poor. At 4ft, about half normal viewing difference alrealy you can't see much difference with DVD.

I borrow a really good projector and do 50" for DVDs. You can really see the lack of detail at that size in living room at 7' to 8' viewing distance. With HD stills (all I had last time), the image is fantastic. But with projector / zoom image size reduced to same as TV at that the same HD resolution you can see no advantage compared with the same stills played from DVD on TV.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mossym

watty wrote:

It is simple geometry.


If you are close to TV you see the lack of detail in PAL / DVD / DVB.


HDTV is for LARGE screens (37"min, ideally 48" / 60" ) in a average room. In a Pub / Club you need 100" to 150" screen to get advantage of HDTV as the viewing distance is 2 to 3 times the home viewing distance.

I borrow a really good projector and do 50" for DVDs. You can really see the lack of detail at that size in living room at 7' to 8' viewing distance. With HD stills (all I had last time), the image is fantastic. But with projector / zoom image size reduced to same as TV at that the same HD resolution you can see no advantage compared with the same stills played from DVD on TV.

sorry, but i gotta disagree..

so, by your reckoning, a 50" tv, in a pub, would look the same to someone sitting 30ft away if it was showing standard or high definition??? then you've never been in a pub showing high def..american chnnels didn't show their ads in highdefiniton, so when they went to ads, they switched back to standard definition. Often on returning to the game, they would forget to switch the feed back to the high def feed...I was in pubs for plenty of games where people further back than 30ft were reaching for their phones to call the tv stations to complain and get them to switch back. if they can tell the difference, then surely there is an advantage to HD on smaller screens?

and i've seen HD on a 27" screen..and i've seen standard def on the same screen...again..there is no comparison..I'm talking multiple shows on both, not still images. all kinds of sports, tv shows (Sopranos, ER, Prison Break, Desperate Housewives, 24, CSI) movies (HBO broadcasts HD). The nice thing about all those is that they broadcast a SD feed and a HD feed at the same time, so comparisons are easy to do.

Look, i'm not saying you're wrong, maybe you can't see a difference..maybe the fact that it is only still images that is throwing you...but i've lots of experience with HD(home theatre is a big hobby of mine), and based on my experience i gotta disagree...but to each his own, otherwise we'd all have the same tv's..:)

YoYOPowder

watty wrote:

It is simple geometry.

An HD LCD gives a poor SD picture as the rescaling blurs & artifacts the image, especially on commmon 1024 x 768 LCDs.

Have to disagree Watty. Perhaps in theory you should be correct, even then Im not so sure. I assume you are talking about 1024x768 Plasma Screens, most LCD's will be fine natively @ 1366x768. But a good Plasma will scale without artifacts or blurring and has simply stunning pictures.

pH

Does anyone know about the status of BBC-HD on sky's Irish EPG?

Given that BBC1/2 are on it but 3/4/news etc aren't - I'm assuming that BBC HD on the EPG and recordable is not certain at this stage.

Also given the my current Sky+ charge is waived, I'm presuming that there's no waiving of the HD charge no matter how many premium channels you subscribe to, so my existing SkyWorld/Sky+ subscription would go up 14.99 per month?

ro2

watty wrote:

If you watching a 60" screen in a club or pub, but more than 2 times your normal viewing distance (say 16' / 4.5m away) then it is same as watching a 30" screen and you get no advantage from HDTV.

I think you're on shaky ground there On a 60" screen there will be a difference. Although considering most pubs don't change their digiboxes to 16:9 when they buy widescreen TVs, the difference will probably appear to be huge...

Idleater

watty wrote:

It is simple geometry.
:
:
720 line HD is only a similar amount better than DVB /DVD 720 x 576 Line (PAL flavour) than that is than Analog NTSC (640x 480 line).
:
:
HDTV is for LARGE screens (37"min, ideally 48" / 60" ) in a average room.
:
:
An HD LCD gives a poor SD picture as the rescaling blurs & artifacts the image, especially on commmon 1024 x 768 LCDs.

Firstly, 1024x768 is a 4:3 aspect ratio. Most HD screens are running 1366x768 which is a 16:9 aspect ratio. Some (Toshibas notably) run a screen size of 1280x720 as a native resolution.

Secondly, 37" LCD's and 26" LCD's are both 1366x768, ie, there is no difference in the amount of pixels, just the size of the pixels.

You can only compare "better" quality images when you compare the above (or current HD) to the next gen HD 1920 x 1080 screen dimensions.

Therefore, you cannot say that HD is "meant" for "large" screens.

HD is a higher than PAL/NTSC format, which is defined as 1080i or 720p instead of 576 or 480 (i or p)


Thirdly, the scaling occurrs in every screen that does not have 720 (or pedantically 1080) lines, because it scales the 720p or the 1080i signal into 768 lines.

Finally, the artefacts that you point to on LCD's are caused by the LCD's themselves, be it a slower response time, or the GTG of the pixels, the internal scaler, or any other component not working as fast as it can - not anything to do with HD signals.

L.

watty

Make a cutout of your 28" WS and see how far back it is from Pub 48" TV when you are 7' or 8' from the cut out.

If the pub TV looks any better at the distance it appears to be same size as watching at home, then your home tv is rubbish.

mossym

ah, but that wasn't your point earlier...you said hd would be pointless from 40 ft on a tv under 100ft..that is what i was arguing..

and anyway, if i did what you said, and made the 28 inch tv look the same size as a 50inch tv from 40ft, and fed the 28 inch a sd signal, and the 50 inch a hd signal, then i would expect the hd tv to display a better picture..

i see where you are coming from though...make a picture small enough and the extra pixels don't mean anything..might be true..but it's definitly not the case for at least down to 27" tv's.

and, slightly off topic, but you're mistaken, i never said my home tv was a 28inch, it's a 48inch widescreen hdtv with 1080i native resolution

unfortunately it's an ntsc tv, so i have to feed it upconverted sd signals from my pc..no HD for me even when sky come out with it, unless the signal turns out to be the same as USA standards

watty

Actually while 1024 x 768 is 4:3 XGA, many "HD Ready" 16:9 shape/aspect ratio TVs are actually just 1024 eleongated pixels wide.

The BBC says HD meant for large screens. They and many others have done extensive studies. HD was INVENTED because TV screens in USA and Japan in ordinary rooms were getting too big for analog NTSC quality.

1366x768 is a resolution that suit neither HD mode.

Most sport is 1440 x 720p (60 USA, 50 Europe) and some sport 1920 x1080i

Most everything else is 1920 x 1080i (30 USA and 25 Europe). Sky recommend setting HD box to 1080i mode unless the display ONLY can do 720p.

Yes the artifacts are caused by poor LCD displays, NOT the HD signal. Exactly my point that "early adopters" are getting conned into buying LCDs and Plasmas that don't do justice to HDTV and ironically do SD poorer than almost all 300 to 800 Euro CRT displays.

I spent hours in Sony Center and also other shops and it is MAD money for the quality. The sales reps don't even know what native resolution the TVs do. Many set up also with 4:3 composite video feeds distorted to fill the screen.

I won't worry about a Sky HD sub till the displays are a sensible price for one that does 1080i and 1080p natively.

watty

I'm not a particular fan of MS Media Centre, but for you HD fanatics in London
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/11/fujitsu_deskpower_hd_tv_pc/

ixtlan

watty wrote:

Yes the artifacts are caused by poor LCD displays, NOT the HD signal. Exactly my point that "early adopters" are getting conned into buying LCDs and Plasmas that don't do justice to HDTV and ironically do SD poorer than almost all 300 to 800 Euro CRT displays.

I won't worry about a Sky HD sub till the displays are a sensible price for one that does 1080i and 1080p natively.

Too negative! We need those early adopters to drive newer better models!:)

On the 1080p panels, as I've said before there is a contradiction in the discussion about screen sizes. Assuming the scalers are good enough, and I accept that's not to be taken for granted, your argument about size shows that a 1366x768 panel at 32/37/40 inches and 8ft plus viewing distance may not be noticeably better than a 1080 panel. You have said people won't notice the extra pixels at those sizes and distances.

Even with some scaling artefacts, a 32" TV probably does not need more than 768/720 lines. A 37" may not be much better.

It will be a long time (surely at least 5 years) before the average size of a TV in Ireland exceeds even 32" LCD, never mind 40". So I would not dismiss 768 panels for those sizes.

There are reasons to wait... cheaper...better blacks... better SD display... more HD content... but I would not say that people who buy 768 panels are being conned. This is the way industry and technology works. Introduce a product as soon as possible then improve and try to get the same people to replace in a few years... Sad yes, but I've given this some thought and this is the basic for modern economics!

Even so, I will wait until next year, but I applaud those buying now, and helping to make my future TV cheaper.;)

Ix.

watty

A 32" TV at 8ft does not need more than 600 lines. 90% of people will see no advantage with more than SD 576 lines on a 32" WS TV.

So by your arguement the majority don't need HD TV for 5 years

ixtlan wrote:

It will be a long time (surely at least 5 years) before the average size of a TV in Ireland exceeds even 32" LCD, never mind 40". So I would not dismiss 768 panels for those sizes.

If the sales flop on the current models (they won't), the manufacturers will increase quality and reduce price. But if people don't even know or care what they are getting or confused then the manufacturers have no incentive to do better.

The real problem is having 4 HD standards and basically based on old NHK analog resolution.

The best solution would have been a single HDTV standard of 48Hz interlace (24 fps) and 1920 x 1152 16:9 This format would show 4:3 PAL material exactly 4 pixel square for 1 pixel, slowed by 5% as Films are speeded for PAL by 5% today. Analog NTSC or Digital 480 line "NTSC flavor" would look no worse rescaled than on todays HDTV formats.

The 60Hz / 50Hz historic tied to mains frequency can be ditched with good PSU design.

We are stuck with a bunch of mad compromise specs and fixed pixel displays that can either only do one properly or none properly.

I am keen to get HDTV, but mainly for Films. Not at any cost for dubious increase in quality, but at least 60" WS and 1080i and 1080p native pixels and scanning. A projector with zoom lens is comparable to most 48" HD sets on offer and seems more flexible (36" WS or 29" 4:3 via zoom etc for "normal" programs, both about same hieght of image)

ixtlan

Hi Watty,

Yes, I'm keen to get HD too, mostly so I can watch Sky one's sci-fi shows plus movies... sad I know.

Actually it's you who has convinced me that pixel-wise, HD will not be an improvement over SD with small (32" or less) TVs. But quality-wise it will be better due to the signal being cleaner (SD being so poor compared to what it could be). However, if people get such "small" TVs then as I said the 768 lines should be enough.

I know you are right about large screens over 50", but really there's no way that they will be sold in large volumes in the near future.

I'm fussy, paranoid, and love my TV so I'm inclined to look for a 1080 TV even at 37", and I'll pay more for it just in case it's a little better. However if a friend asks me for advice, and they don't want to spend any more than necessary and they are not going over 37" (and most likely they want 32") then I have to say 768/1080 probably won't make a difference. I would however tell them to delay purchasing until they can't wait anymore since every 6 months or so brings a new better cheaper generation of TVs.

Ix.

Idleater

watty wrote:

Actually while 1024 x 768 is 4:3 XGA, many "HD Ready" 16:9 shape/aspect ratio TVs are actually just 1024 eleongated pixels wide.
...

Eh, no. As far as I can see, most screens are natively 1366x768. Not an elongated 1024x768. Here are just two examples found just to illustrate the point. I am sure that I can find many many more, and if you would like to spare me the effort, maybe you could post a link to a screen that has a native widescreen stretched 1024x768 resolution:

lg wrote:

26LX2R
W-XGA Native Resolution 1366 x 768

samsung wrote:

le26m51b
Resolution 1366(H) x 768(V)

As far as your 4 standards of HD are concerned, I thought that "they" were introducing it in various stages.
ie, first off 720p (mostly used in Pal areas) and 1080i (mainly for NTSC type areas). The next gen HD is the 1080p, but as the bandwidth required for this is too great to be supported at the moment, this technology is not being deployed for a number of years (based on 1st gen HD takeup).

There are many arguments for both side of the 720p v 1080i debate, but the "HD Ready" standards had to start somewhere and they chose 26" as the minimum. I would think this was chosen because that is the size that most entry level consumers would go for, ie, if it was set as you would like, at 37", then consumers would automatically be "forced" to spend 2x the amount on the new technology (plus the HD subscriptions etc) which was thought to be too great of an impact and would delay the adoption of the first band of HD TV (ie 720p/1080i).

With your comments about the recommended viewing distances, I don't see why you continue to push the "large" screens seeing as the majority of sittingrooms would not be able to facilitate the "recommended viewing distances".

Surely, buying a smaller HD Screen and sitting the correct distance from it will give the viewer a better clarity of picture than buying a larger screen, sitting too close to it, and seeing the pixel boundaries and lines???

L.

copacetic

watty wrote:

A 32" TV at 8ft does not need more than 600 lines. 90% of people will see no advantage with more than SD 576 lines on a 32" WS TV.

So by your arguement the majority don't need HD TV for 5 years


If the sales flop on the current models (they won't), the manufacturers will increase quality and reduce price. But if people don't even know or care what they are getting or confused then the manufacturers have no incentive to do better.

The real problem is having 4 HD standards and basically based on old NHK analog resolution.

The best solution would have been a single HDTV standard of 48Hz interlace (24 fps) and 1920 x 1152 16:9 This format would show 4:3 PAL material exactly 4 pixel square for 1 pixel, slowed by 5% as Films are speeded for PAL by 5% today. Analog NTSC or Digital 480 line "NTSC flavor" would look no worse rescaled than on todays HDTV formats.

The 60Hz / 50Hz historic tied to mains frequency can be ditched with good PSU design.

We are stuck with a bunch of mad compromise specs and fixed pixel displays that can either only do one properly or none properly.

I am keen to get HDTV, but mainly for Films. Not at any cost for dubious increase in quality, but at least 60" WS and 1080i and 1080p native pixels and scanning. A projector with zoom lens is comparable to most 48" HD sets on offer and seems more flexible (36" WS or 29" 4:3 via zoom etc for "normal" programs, both about same hieght of image)

have to disagree totally about your insistence on massive screens, also in my experience projectors give a terrible picture...

looking at 1080p content on the latest 1920x1080 native LCD displays will be fantastic. at all the pro broadcast shows in the last couple of years we are seeing no plasmas, cubes are only used for wall apps and projectors are non-existant. at NAB next week i'm betting 95% of displays used will be LCD (this is not diplay companies but display users looking for highest quality). when the professional industry makes such an obvious move you have to believe that consumers will follow eventually..

the 50HZ/60HZ has nothing to do with psu design, it is needed depending on what HD camera the footage was shot with. if you don't match you will get artifacts on pans, unless the camerman allowed for it.

mossym

nereid wrote:

ie, first off 720p (mostly used in Pal areas) and 1080i (mainly for NTSC type areas). The next gen HD is the 1080p, but as the bandwidth required for this is too great to be supported at the moment, this technology is not being deployed for a number of years (based on 1st gen HD takeup).

There are many arguments for both side of the 720p v 1080i debate, but the "HD Ready" standards had to start somewhere and they chose 26" as the minimum. I would think this was chosen because that is the size that most entry level consumers would go for, ie, if it was set as you would like, at 37", then consumers would automatically be "forced" to spend 2x the amount on the new technology (plus the HD subscriptions etc) which was thought to be too great of an impact and would delay the adoption of the first band of HD TV (ie 720p/1080i).

just a minor correcion here..720p and 1080i has nothing to do with location. IN the USA, both flavors are present, of the four major networks, fox are definitely 720p, nbc are 1080i, and i think of cbs and abc, one is on each side of the fence as well..

arguements for 720p and 1080i, well 720p is supposedly better for sports, as each line is drawn directly after the one before it, then 720p is supposedly better for fast moving pictures..

1080i is supposedly better for detail, so slower moving pictures..

f or example, given the choice, i'd watch soccer and the matrix on a 720p screen, and something like open range on a 1080i screen..

as for the stations supplying the different formats.well at least in the us all signals were delivered to the box in their native form. the box was then set to whatever input your tv took, and it converted the channles that were of the different format...

I'm pretty sure with sky being the predominant source of both transmission and source for the Hd for the immediate future, that one single format will be used, probably 720p, given the overwhelming majority of lcd here.

but 1080i and 720p has nothing to do with location..i think the choice of 720p in europe has to do with the fact that here you don't have the big rear projection crts that can take 1080i. When plasma's and lcds were still prohibitively epensive, they were of a much better price point..i guess the flatscreens had come down in price enough that they were affordable by the time big screens tokk off here.

mossym

daveym wrote:

have to disagree totally about your insistence on massive screens, also in my experience projectors give a terrible picture...

not if they are done right....dark room, quality source, they can look amazing..

copacetic

mossym wrote:

not if they are done right....dark room, quality source, they can look amazing..

well i guess i meant in general conditions, of course if you are only going to watch your tv in a darkened room, with blackout curtains etc etc it will look ok:)

YoYOPowder

nereid wrote:

Eh, no. As far as I can see, most screens are natively 1366x768. Not an elongated 1024x768. Here are just two examples found just to illustrate the point. I am sure that I can find many many more, and if you would like to spare me the effort, maybe you could post a link to a screen that has a native widescreen stretched 1024x768 resolution:

I think Watty means Plasma screens are elongated 1024x768. He is correct, a plamsa pixel, if you would like to call it that is rectangular in shape, primarily in the 42" category.

watty

mossym wrote:

not if they are done right....dark room, quality source, they can look amazing..

Actually you can get projectors just as bright as regular TV.

Predominant HD on Sky HD inc FTA HD will be 1080i. Not 720p. It is nothing to do with what actual sets are sold.

Many LCD screens are elongated pixels. SD WS is always elongated pixels too.

marilynM

mod edit: no pimping please

mossym

well if sky gets most of it's hd programming from the US, what it broadcasts in will be whatever format it was broadcasted in over there..

it says on their site that the box will skip to whatever format the program is in..that's gotta be a lie..the box will otuput whatever you set it to, and convert the signal it gets to match that if it has to

watty

The majority in US is 1080i 30, with a lot of sport as 720p60, but some sport 1080i 30.

We have 720p50 and 1080i25

Nat Geo will almost all be 1080i

mossym

am, no..the majority in the states depends on what network produced it..see my above post...anything fox shows is in 720..anything nbc shows is in 1080, fox's sports is in 720, nbc's is in 1080...

watty

mossym wrote:

it says on their site that the box will skip to whatever format the program is in..that's gotta be a lie..the box will otuput whatever you set it to, and convert the signal it gets to match that if it has to

It sounds a bit like WS /16:9 / 4:3 Crop / 4:3 letterbox.

If you set to 720p, EVERYTHING is output in 720p. Only recomended for displays that ONLY input 720p.

If the display can do 720p or 1080i, then no matter what the native resolution, the box is recommended to be set to 1080i. Like the 16:9 mode, though this may be a "do nothing" mode. (if material is 4:3 or 16:9, when digibox is set to 16:9 it only wiggles the SCART voltage, it does nothing to the picture).

mossym

watty wrote:

It sounds a bit like WS /16:9 / 4:3 Crop / 4:3 letterbox.

If you set to 720p, EVERYTHING is output in 720p. Only recomended for displays that ONLY input 720p.

If the display can do 720p or 1080i, then no matter what the native resolution, the box is recommended to be set to 1080i. Like the 16:9 mode, though this may be a "do nothing" mode. (if material is 4:3 or 16:9, when digibox is set to 16:9 it only wiggles the SCART voltage, it does nothing to the picture).

yup agreed, you can't have it swap between the two..if the display can't take it most people wouldn't know why..

but i would think if you have your box set to 4:3, and the signal incoming is 16:9, then your box will output a 4:3 signal with black bars on top and bottom, and in an unstretched mode on your tv, you will have black bars on all side...(maybe grey..:) )

otherwise , how would a 4:3 hdtv cope with the picture?(just wondering aloud here)

you've got to excuse me here..there is no scart in the states, so i can't comment on the wiggle of a scart connection

bk

mossym wrote:

am, no..the majority in the states depends on what network produced it..see my above post...anything fox shows is in 720..anything nbc shows is in 1080, fox's sports is in 720, nbc's is in 1080...

ABC, FOX and ÈSPN broadcast in 720p. CBS, NBC and nearly all other channels (sat/cable) broadcast in 1080i.

However it is important to point out that nearly all TV produced in the US is filmed in either 35mm film (therefore easily transferable to any resoltuion up to and beyond 1080p) or increasingly 1920x1080x24P.

This includes ABC and Fox, they only broadcast in 720p, they always film in 1920x1080x24P or better for foreign export.

Take a look at this report for very interesting info on HD filming and broadcasting:
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_299-ive.pdf

It is interesting to note that the movie industry is starting to move to 4k or 4096x2160!!

watty

2000 line + has always been spec for Cinema Projection. Big screen and smaller auditorium than in 50s & 60s

watty

mossym wrote:

yup agreed, you can't have it swap between the two..if the display can't take it most people wouldn't know why..

but i would think if you have your box set to 4:3, and the signal incoming is 16:9, then your box will output a 4:3 signal with black bars on top and bottom, and in an unstretched mode on your tv, you will have black bars on all side...(maybe grey..:) )

otherwise , how would a 4:3 hdtv cope with the picture?(just wondering aloud here)

you've got to excuse me here..there is no scart in the states, so i can't comment on the wiggle of a scart connection

The Sky Digibox and every other digital set-top box with SCART in europe I know has three settings:

1) 16:9. This actually does nothing except change a SCART signal*.
2) 4:3 Crop. Does nothing to 4:3 transmissions, crops and rescales horizonatlly an 16:9 TX.
3) 4:3 Letter box. Does nothing to 4:3 and resamples 16:9 vertically to add black bars top & bottom.


Better 26" + sized 4:3 CRTs TVs (esp better Philips and now gone Sonys) actually work best with the box set to 16:9 as these sets will reduce the vertical drive as if a WS tube is fitted to give true WS quality when the Line23 , SCART 5V or manual menu Mode is set to 16:9. I have one of the last 4:3 28" Mitsubishis that does this and gives virtually a 27" WS picture identical to best WS TVs in 16:9 mode.

*SCART signal. SCART signal is 0V for inactive source, 5V for 16:9 source and 12V approx for 4:3 source or a device with no WS swtiching.

Line 23 of the video can also have a signal to define:
4:3 mode
4:3 with 14:9 letterbox
4:3 with 16:9 letterbox
PalPlus ?
16:9 animorphic mode.
Some Set top boxes support this Line23 signalling, The Sky Digibox HW has been proved to support it but has not the SW for it.

SCART was invented by French as Trade Barrier (Peritel) but oddly it was a good idea, and everyone adopted it and thus it was no trade barrier.

It is a very low cost easy to assemble assymetric 21 pin connector. It supports connections for:
Stereo Audio in
Stereo Audio out
Composite Video in
Composite Video out
RGB (3 wires, shared in or out)
S-Video (i.e. Y & C ) in / out.
5V Serial control bus
RGB / Composite control signal
Device on / WS /Normal control signal.

watty

bk wrote:

However it is important to point out that nearly all TV produced in the US is filmed in either 35mm film (therefore easily transferable to any resoltuion up to and beyond 1080p) or increasingly 1920x1080x24P.

This includes ABC and Fox, they only broadcast in 720p, they always film in 1920x1080x24P or better for foreign export.

Then it is likely all Sky import will be 1080i as this is their preferred mode.

ffocused

i ordered sky hd this morning, and am getting an octo lnb from them too:D

.........just waiting for a call back to confirm my install date.

mossym

okay, i stand corrected, i presumed when they were shooting in film ,that thye would only do one transfer to HD to save money. although if they are doing a transfer to 1080i anyway, whya re they bothering with a second one to 720? why not just broadcast in 1080i?

ah well

ro2

watty wrote:

A 32" TV at 8ft does not need more than 600 lines. 90% of people will see no advantage with more than SD 576 lines on a 32" WS TV.

So by your arguement the majority don't need HD TV for 5 years

So instead of getting Sky HD I could just sit 24 feet back from my projector?

daveym wrote:

have to disagree totally about your insistence on massive screens, also in my experience projectors give a terrible picture...

A good projector in a darkish room will do as good a job as a plasma, plus it'll probably be about four times the size.

bk

mossym wrote:

okay, i stand corrected, i presumed when they were shooting in film ,that thye would only do one transfer to HD to save money. although if they are doing a transfer to 1080i anyway, whya re they bothering with a second one to 720? why not just broadcast in 1080i?

Must of the high end shows like 24 would still be filmed in 35mm. However the cheaper stuff like dramas and sitcoms are being filmed in 1920x1080x24P to save money.

They do this because despite them broadcasting in 720p, there is a very big market in exporting shows to foreign countries and almost all broadcasters outside the US use 1080i. Also the shows will be more suitable for transfer to HDDVD/BD at a later stage, this is expected to be a very big market for all the broadcasters.