Sky+ Vs UPC picture quality

xobten

Having just switched from Sky to UPC Digital I must say I'm more than a little disapointed with the picture quality of UPC.

I assumed that with both being 'digital' the picture quality of both would have been on a par but apparently that's not the case.

Am I the only one with this opinion or is it a general understanding that UPC is the poorer of the two and I just missed out on that information before I switched ?

Solair

I found UPC Digital cable on a 40" flat screen almost unwatchable. It's very poor resolution indeed, certainly in Cork anyway.

We switched to Sky and the difference is like night and day. I wouldn't recomend UPC Digital to anyone with an interest in watching good quality images on a pricy TV.

Irishdudedave

I'd have to disagree here... Yes at first when I connected UPC to my 42inch tv it looked pixelated and crap but after a few minutes fiddling with the settings on my TV I had it looking better than Sky does on some of my friends TVs (Granted my friends have the store set SUPER BRIGHT pictures set on their TVs)

bk

Sky typically use higher bitrates then UPC as they have far more bandwidth, which means Sky will always look better.

dunworth1

bk wrote: »

Sky typically use higher bitrates then UPC as they have far more bandwidth, which means Sky will always look better.

you cant really say always what about when they start using fiber or other better ways.

bk

dunworth1 wrote: »

you cant really say always what about when they start using fiber or other better ways.

Most of UPC's back end network is fibre, but until they start pulling fibre right into peoples homes, they will continue to be limited by the capabilities of co-ax cable.

xobten

I have a Sony 46" 1080p Bravia and the picture with UPC is just terrible,it's depressing when I compare it to th picture I was getting with Sky and considering the grief I'm now getting about it from She Who Must Be Obeyed, I'm really starting to regret switching, although to be honest,the broadband speed was a big factor in my decision.

Anyway,what is it with UPC still runnig DVR box's with Scart connections ? Surely in this day and age they should have the ability to connect with HDMI ? I suppose we can look forward to a new upgraded box being just around the corner (!).

With that HDMI thought in mind,would there be any point in investing in a Scart to HDMI upscaler ? I see lots of them on eBay but I've no idea if their any use .Comments please ??

bk

xobten wrote: »

With that HDMI thought in mind,would there be any point in investing in a Scart to HDMI upscaler ? I see lots of them on eBay but I've no idea if their any use .Comments please ??

They are of no use.

There are devices out their that do a decent job of taking a SD picture and up convert to HD, but they typically start from about €1000!!!

The reason the UPC box doesn't have HDMI is because it isn't a HD service and even if it had HDMI, it would make little difference to the picture quality.

Solair

They're not THAT limited by their newer installations of coax. I suspect they're keeping the bitrate and the bandwidth low to cope with a mixture of old and new cable infrastructure.

They need to improve the bit rate, it's becoming very noticeable on large format TVs.

DingDong

Solair wrote: »

They're not THAT limited by their newer installations of coax. I suspect they're keeping the bitrate and the bandwidth low to cope with a mixture of old and new cable infrastructure.

They need to improve the bit rate, it's becoming very noticeable on large format TVs.

Spot on Solair its the old parts of the network that are holding it back. The old parts of the network only go to about 400Mhz while the new part go all the way to 860Mhz. That's a lot of bandwidth sitting empty.

christophicus

Is there anyway to tell if your on the old part of the network ?? Is it as simple as if you are on the new part you can get BB, but if you are on the old part you cannot ?

DingDong

Some old parts have got BB. Usually the old parts of the network have analogue TV on band I, so you can kinda tell by that, but some times its not as clear as that.

watty

You also need more expensive head end etc. it's possible for Cable to have the same quality as Satellite but currently a mix of issues including encoders, signal source quality and network bandwidth is the issue.

Ditching Analogue completely solves the bandwidth issue.

A better up converter isn't the issue, nor built in HDMI.

Kensington

UPCs problem is, as watty says, that their analogue service is using up nearly half the cable spectrum available to them at present (up to about 400MHz as they're using both the new and old systems in parallel). So to get as many digital channels as they currently have, down, means compressing them quite severely to transmit them at a low bitrate which causes noticeable "blocking" of your picture. What's even worse is that a lot of their channels are pulled in from digital satellite, which is already compressed so the Receive from sat -> Decode -> Re-encode introduces noticeable artifacts itself - bring the low transmission bitrate into the equation and it just makes it even worse.

And a HDMI upscaler, no matter how good, will make no difference. You can't add to the signal, information that isn't there, having been dumped by the encoders before transmission.

deanh

xobten wrote: »

Having just switched from Sky to UPC Digital I must say I'm more than a little disapointed with the picture quality of UPC.

I assumed that with both being 'digital' the picture quality of both would have been on a par but apparently that's not the case.

Am I the only one with this opinion or is it a general understanding that UPC is the poorer of the two and I just missed out on that information before I switched ?

I have to say that I am surprised by this reaction. You are not clear whether you are a digital cable or mmds customer? I have digital cable in Cork set up for widescreen( using set-top-box) and have no problem with the picture quality, although I have no experience of sky digital to make a comparison. Previous posts would suggest that the quality of digital mmds is not to the same standard.

KeRbDoG

The difference in quality of UPC and Sky is huge, its now especially noticeable now with the larger TVs that are available to the masses. Until UPC upgrade their service/cabling/STBs, if you want good picture quality on SD channels best to get a dish based service like Sky or Freesat.

Irishdudedave

kerbdog wrote: »

The difference in quality of UPC and Sky is huge, its now especially noticeable now with the larger TVs that are available to the masses. Until UPC upgrade their service/cabling/STBs, if you want good picture quality on SD channels best to get a dish based service like Sky or Freesat.

I wouldnt say the difference is huge at all... Yes at times there is a difference but never that noticable!

It could be that Im watching UPC digital in Cork.... Analogue has been switched off here so the bandwidth is available...maybe they've started using it in my area for higher bitrates for channels....

Keith186

Irishdudedave wrote: »

I wouldnt say the difference is huge at all... Yes at times there is a difference but never that noticable!

It could be that Im watching UPC digital in Cork.... Analogue has been switched off here so the bandwidth is available...maybe they've started using it in my area for higher bitrates for channels....

Well I'm not in your area but I would say the difference is noticable after having both. The UPC/NTL picture looks like it has a sort of stain on it if you get what I mean. This is on a 32" LCD by the way.

In general NTL is substandard to Sky in all areas from what I gather, correct me if I'm wrong. (PM me as I haven't subscribed).

sdanseo

bk wrote: »

Most of UPC's back end network is fibre, but until they start pulling fibre right into peoples homes, they will continue to be limited by the capabilities of co-ax cable.

...through which the signal from Sky and Sky+ boxes is transferred from the dish.

Solair

The bandwidth on a proper coax network is quite capable of providing excellent resolution. UPC are running at very low bit rates. I'm not sure if that's varied area-to-area, but I know we had UPC cable in Cork quite recently and the picture resolution was comparable to some of the 'cheap' channels on Sky i.e. the ones with blotchy somewhat more pixelated signals.

UPC are quite clearly tailoring their signals to the lowest common denominator within their network which is old infrastructure designed for analogue cable reception of about 25 channels max.

The bandwidth on a modern coax cable network's not really any more limited than the bandwidth on the cable running from your sky dish to your sky box. It's eaten into somewhat by interactive services like broadband/phone etc, but then again, Sky has to put up with whatever bandwidth they can get on Astra's satellites, they have to share with other providers and several hundred pointless shopping channels.

IF UPC are serious about taking on Sky, which I sometimes doubt they are. They really need to have more of an adaptive approach to rolling out digital TV on their networks i.e. providing it at the maximum bit rate they can squeeze out of the network in any given area.

I suspect they're stuck with the current set up as the signals are compressed by a very limited number of headends, so they have to adopt a one-size-fits-all policy until each network's fully upgraded. I assume the equipment to modulate and encode the signals is very expensive kit, so you don't want to be unnecessarily duplicating it in every suburb of Dublin, Cork and Limerick etc. Although, with fibre-to-last-amplifier, they should be able to do something!

The problem with this is that for every week they have poor reception, they are losing hundreds of customers to Sky, or increasingly Freesat to access HD in particular. Once TVs go beyond 30", the signal quality makes a massive difference and more and more TVs are huge now. Even 5 years ago you didn't see very many televisions over 32", now it seems every second household has a big LCD panel and it's making UPC digital look really shoddy in comparison to Sky.

The only selling point for UPC at the moment is broadband.

They REALLY REALLY need to address this picture quality issue if they are serious about getting customers.

Even carrying core channels at higher bit rate would help!

watty

Yes, per channel HeadEnd gear for decent real time re-encoding quality can be 5,000 to 20,000 Eur.

Storm 10

Hi Guys

I switched yesterday to the basic digital pack, I had cable costing 23.70 per month for 16 channels now I have 36 for 20.

I also have sky on the dish, I have a Sony 32 inch CRT TV and I find the picture quality excellent however I am going to buy a new Samsung 40 inch LCD TV in January and was wondering if there could be picture quality problems with the NTL pack.

Any help appreciated by the way I am in Galway

Stephen P

I changed from UPC Digital (DVR Box) to Sky+ HD. I have a 40" Samsung LCD TV and the quality from UPC was appalling compared to Sky. I spent enough money on the TV that I wanted a good quality picture. UPC just isn't worth it. UPC's broadband on the other hand is great so I kept that.

Storm 10

Stephen P wrote: »

I changed from UPC Digital (DVR Box) to Sky+ HD. I have a 40" Samsung LCD TV and the quality from UPC was appalling compared to Sky. I spent enough money on the TV that I wanted a good quality picture. UPC just isn't worth it. UPC's broadband on the other hand is great so I kept that.

Hi Stephen P

I have the sky package anyway but I had the NTL on Analouge cable at least the digital pack is clearer.

How do you find the Samsung telly is it a good buy.

billo41

Stephen P wrote: »

I changed from UPC Digital (DVR Box) to Sky+ HD. I have a 40" Samsung LCD TV and the quality from UPC was appalling compared to Sky. I spent enough money on the TV that I wanted a good quality picture. UPC just isn't worth it. UPC's broadband on the other hand is great so I kept that.

I was thinking of changing from Sky to UPC after Christmas to take advantage of one of their deals. Reading these postings I think I'll stay put. I didn't know you could take the phone/broadband on its own.

Stephen P

The samsung tv's are great. I'd recommend them. To get UPC broadband on it's own it's an extra €6 p/mth.

Freddie59

Keith186 wrote: »

Well I'm not in your area but I would say the difference is noticable after having both. The UPC/NTL picture looks like it has a sort of stain on it if you get what I mean. This is on a 32" LCD by the way.

In general NTL is substandard to Sky in all areas from what I gather, correct me if I'm wrong. (PM me as I haven't subscribed).

How can you make a statement like that if you don't have it?

I have a Toshiba 37" Regza LCD connected to NTL analogue and Digital. Yes up close there is deterioration - but this is the same on Sky. But when viewed at the recommended distance it is excellent.

Go into any electrical retailers and look at the quality on their displays (usually driven by a satellite feed). There is an ENORMOUS differential in picture quality across the different brands.

As several people have pointed out here, setting the TV preferences is critical to quality on SD - no matter what the brand or provider. If you have a 40" TV you should be a minimum of three times the screen size away (10 FEET) from it to view good quality SD. The same as on Sky.

So do choose carefully. But SD on an LCD is a compromise - either on satellite or cable. Bear that in mind. I have a relation with NTL Digital and Analogue connected to a four year-old 100 Hz Sony CRT. The picture quality is stunning. Better than ANY LCD or Plasma.

Freddie59

Storm 10 wrote: »

I switched yesterday to the basic digital pack, I had cable costing 23.70 per month for 16 channels now I have 36 for 20.

:eek:

Storm 10

Freddie59 wrote: »

How can you make a statement like that if you don't have it?

So do choose carefully. But SD on an LCD is a compromise - either on satellite or cable. Bear that in mind. I have a relation with NTL Digital and Analogue connected to a four year-old 100 Hz Sony CRT. The picture quality is stunning. Better than ANY LCD or Plasma.

I also have a 32 Inch Sony CRT Trinitron TV connected to NTL Digital and Sky Digital and the picture is stunning on all of them I also have the cable which you can keep when you upgrade to digital with NTL. I was going to change my TV for a 40 Inch LCD but I am not sure now as to what picture quality I will have maybe I should stick with my CRT for the time being.

Freddie59

Storm 10 wrote: »

I also have a 32 Inch Sony CRT Trinitron TV connected to NTL Digital and Sky Digital and the picture is stunning on all of them I also have the cable which you can keep when you upgrade to digital with NTL.

Well that kinda puts to bed the NTL v Sky argument methinks.:)

RandomPerson13

I have both sky and upc running on the same tv(46" or 47" sharp) and there is not a difference. I have a sky+ box and a chorus sagem mmds box(small one). Once you change the settings on both boxes to be wide screen there both good.

Infoanon

Maybe Watty can correct me on this but I would have thought that the NTL would always be inferior to Sky because:
1. NTL signal is encoded and decoded twice
2. Bitrates are higher on Sky
3. NTL has bandwidth issues
4. NTL are still running the digital network on an analogue network in many areas

I would imagine that most viewers are impressed by the jump from UPC basic to UPC digital re reception issues with BBC2/TnaG/TV3 - RTE 3 Rock & Ch.4/Disc/E4 re Band I and only those who subscribe to these pages can tell the difference between Sky & UPC

BostonB

Not everyone can see the difference either. IMO the quality of the cables (Coax/Scart) can make a bit of a difference too.

John Dough

From a distance there is not a great deal of difference but it is there as most of UPC digital channels are on 576i resolution wheras sky has 720p and in hi def 1080i so only a full hd 1080P set will show up the difference.Both will look good on high quality CRTs too so not worth upgrading your set unless you are a blu ray fanatic!!!









11

BostonB

I notice compression artifacts more often on UPC. Some channels more than others.

watty

Sky does not broadcast in 720p.

SD is 576i or 288p vertically but 384, 544, 704 or 720 horizontally, all depending on channel (288p is repeated to give 576i signal).

HD is 1920 x 1080 @ 25i

The Sky HD box can resample to 1440 x 720p to suit very dumb displays. Many HD Ready displays are native 1366 x 768p (1.e. Widescreen version of PC 1024x768) but all will somehow resample SD (720, 704, 544 or 384 x 576 @ 25i) or 720p or 1080i to the native resolution. Sadly some do 1080i deinterlacing by using alternate 540 line fields resampled to 768, so you get slightly poorer vertical resolution than a good CRT with SD. The 1920 is resampled to 1366.


1080i and 1080p are identical resolution on static or slow moving scenes. But "i" uses 1/2 the transmission bandwidth of "p". "p" gives twice the sharpness on rapidly moving detail, but most people can't see rapidly moving detail. Cheaper 1080p sets can't deinterlace 1080i without blurring it badly, especially on movement. The best quality for 1080i display is a screen than can natively do 1080i (interlace). There is always some degradation in de-interlacing for an 1080p only native display.

No one in europe broadcasts 1080p.

rom

interlaced

---

Progressive


I personally can tell the difference 1080i and 1080p.

a comment like you said that most people won't noticed the difference, that is people who don't know that there is differences. if you are aware of different levels of HD quality then you will. just like people say 128kbit/s mp3s sound as good as CD when they first come out and now people can hear the difference very easily with better encoded versions. Anyone who is familiar with the technology as is not the case now will know the difference.

Just because no one in europe broadcasts in 1080p doesnt mean that everyone should get 1080i tv's

I have UPC and a sat box and i can tell you that the reason that UPC picture is ****e on the UPC box is down to the decoder on the box.

If you were somehow able to get better hardware to decode your UPC stream then you would have a better than Sky picture but of course the law states that you should only use UPC provided hardware to do this as its illegal.

also comparing sky+ with UPC is BS

its sky SD and upc :rolleyes:

BostonB

rom wrote: »

...

also comparing sky+ with UPC is BS

its sky SD and upc :rolleyes:

Did you mean Sky HD not Sky+ ?

watty

rom wrote: »

I personally can tell the difference 1080i and 1080p.

Your two pictures tell NOTHING about the quality, but how picture is built.

NO ONE, nor a computer program can tell the difference between a static 1080i and 1080p picture. They are IDENTICAL.

Only as the movement gets faster is there ANY difference.

An 1080p only screen degrades 1080i pictures, blurs them vertically. A Very very good de-interlacer on a 1080p native screen only blurs the 1080i slightly.

A 1080p screen ONLY makes 1080p pictures better. The BEST screen is one that does 1080i and 1080p natively without de-interlacing.

There is a problem with 3:2 pull down 24fps film conversion to 30i (USA Sd or HD) where two different film frames make one Tv frame. This causes a comb artifact. This doesn't happen in in Europe with 24fps film to 576i or 1080i 25.

The Internet is FULL of rubbish about 1080i and 1080p, in part due to the USA/Japan pull down artifact problem. I won't let you propagate the same mis-information here.

rom wrote: »

I have UPC and a sat box and i can tell you that the reason that UPC picture is ****e on the UPC box is down to the decoder on the box.

The issue with UPC Digital is NOTHING to do with the set boxes. You even confuse Sky+ (576i like UPC, but PVR) and SkyHD (HDMI 1080i output or 576i output and 720p conversion). It's a head end coding issue and also source quality, or sometimes too much interference/crosstalk (makes picture blockier).

ANY conversion reduces quality. Some reduce it more than others. Upscaling SD to HD actually reduces quality. It makes edges less blocky on a very large (> 40" screen close) but degrades sharpness on a 32" WS at normal viewing distance.

1080p to 1080i conversion only blurs very fast movement (and only to 540 lines on fastest movement). 1080i to 1080p conversion can blur the entire picture to 540 lines even if static if cheaply done. If done using best system, then it blurs fastest movement to nearly 270 lines, intermediate to 540lines and leaves slow movement/static images at 1080 lines.

Study some Shannon, Nyquist, Mathematics and Movement perception theory .

BostonB

Not sure I followed all that. Need to read it a few times!

watty wrote: »

....sometimes too much interference/crosstalk (makes picture blockier).,,,

Where does this happen? Everywhere along the signal?

watty

Anyplace on cable between headend and you.

Overloaded trunk amplifier,
Faulty customer equipment of a neighbour,
Broadcast ingress.

You can see same on Sky or MMDS if dish is a little out of alignment when it rains, picture gets blockier and may freeze.

You can play with Photoshop/Paintshop Pro/Gimp to see what I mean about static 1080p versus 1080i (GIFs can be interlaced) vs upscaling.

You need serious video gear and real 1080i and real 1080p monitors to see the dynamic effect of 1080i, 1080p and conversion either direction.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#3:2_pulldown
and scroll down to NTSC 2:3 to see the horrors of USA 30i compared with our 25i