Question about SKY HD quality
 

I have just had sky hd installed, but I have not yet purchased my hd tv yet.
At the moment I have a panasonic 36 inch 100 htz tv.
Without a doubt the picture I am getting through the hd channels is better even though it is only connected thru scart.I know its not hd but can anyone tell me why the picture is better, I have noticed that the football broadcasts do not have the compression like aura around the players that you get with normal sky.I would be interested to hear any comments

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Sounds like i have the same tv as you! Its because HD sends more scan lines per frame and your TV is able to cope with these. Your TV was too good for the number of scan lines it was receiving before.

Does anyone know if HD is interlaced or not?

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

HD can be either Interlaced or Progressive. If you see the vertical resolution expressed with an i at the end, it's interlaced.

I'm pretty sure that all the low-end (<£5000) Hi Def equipment will be interlaced.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Its interlaced, Sky HD runs at 1080i. (the i is for interlaced).

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Thanks for the info.It was a nice surprise cos I did not expect to get any improvement untill I bought a new T.V.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Actually just to clarify my last statement Sky HD is broadcast at 1080i as standard, however i believe the box can be set to quite a few standards (720P for example)

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

The HD broadcasts are done with MPEG4, there are more tools available with this. The way artifacts are handled by it is different with in loop deblocking filters. So I'd say the reason your pics look better is due to this.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

I'm not a huge expert on these things, but it's not surprising that the picture quality is better. The amount of bandwidth that HD requires is of course much greater than standard broadcasts, as well as using a different encoding algorythm. The usual Sky channels are very much subject to blockiness and artifacts, so this would be less pronouced on HD.

Of course, you'll get the full benefit, as you know, on an HD TV.

What is interesting is that watching standard Sky channels on an HD TV really shows up the poor quality of the system in comparison - which is my main reason for not buying an HD TV right now.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Man, we have been conned!!!! When it was Analogue, you got an 8mhz channel all to one channel ie Sky Sports 1. You could see the players faces, and those of the crowd. Then, we are "given" digital, They said the picture would be better, so they crammed upto 7 channels down 8mhz of bandwidth. This resulted in............... wait for it......... crap pictures that lacked definition. Ahhh they say you need HD TV!!! But pay us more money, and go to our sponsers/partners and buy an HD TV, there now you have good pictures!!!!

I've been had, Sky, NTL/TW greatest con trick ever!!!!!!!

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

You cant compare analogue and digital in terms of bandwidth

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

No, you can't compare them directly. However, reducing bandwidth does directly affect the quality of a digital signal. If you compared an uncompressed digital signal with an Analogue signal, most people would say that the digital signal is better. As soon as you compress it, the quality may be better or worse depending on the encoding and bandwidth used.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

It was only 8MHz on Cable, satellite uses 28MHz or so channels.
I'd also say 7 channels per mux is on the low side.
HD has the capacity to show far greater detail than analogue ever could, if its given enough bitrate. The second generation of encoders are coming out now as well, so pictures will improve.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

My point exactly!! And you know as well as I do they will compress it to death

---------- Post added at 16:54 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

So, How many uncompressed digital channels could you put in a mux?? (just out of interest)

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

An uncompressed SDI video signal is 270Mb/s. An uncompressed HD SDI video signal is 1.5Gb/s
A satellite Mux is 34 and a bit Mb/s A cable Mux is 38 and a bit Mb/s

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

I think you've got a very good point there! Although having seen some HD broadcasts, the quality is much better than ye olde analogue!

No, but your average punter doesn't give a monkey's about bandwidth and digits - they care about the picture quality.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

The Transport streams/Mux's aren't really my field...But, If they put one digital stream down an 8mhz channel, you wouldn't need HD, would you?
If that is true, we the punter have been conned....

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

HD is a much much much better image than even uncompressed SD. The screen has far more detail as there are far more dots making up the image.
Conned? How? There isn't enough room for all the channels people are demanding are made available to them, without using compression.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Because they dumbed bown the digital image until it had less detail than analogue, thus creating a market for HD
If they didn't compress the digital streams to death, there wouldn't be such a great differance between Digital and HD!!

Hence my view we have been conned:Yikes:

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Demanding? Funny, I must have missed the petition that went round demanding more shopping channels, more gaming channels and more text-us-and-we'll-gyrate-for-you channels. :Yikes: The digital 'revolution' consists of trillions upon trillions of bits of wasted data.

No, but to coin an Aussie phrase, even Blind Freddie knows that picture quality on most channels is worse now than it was on analogue, precisely because digital presented the broadcasters with the temptation to compress their content and deliver quantity over quality, something they didn't have the option to do previously. DAB is even worse in this regard, most digital radio stations are noticably lower quality than FM. I don't plan to buy a DAB radio until after analogue switch off for that reason.

I can barely tolerate watching football on any channel other than BBC1. The compression used my most channels - including Sky Sports, which is a disgrace as it's an additional subscription - ensures that when the camera pans even slightly, the pitch looks as uniform and fuzzy as a snooker table.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

You want to try watching Setanta... Lordy...

SkySports 1&2&3 IMO look pretty good though.

Re: Question about SKY HD quality
 

Funny? No its not.
There may have been petitions, I didn't see them. What I do see is people on this forum, and others asking when does this channel or that channel get launched? Thats a demand for channels which the providers have to weigh up.
Theres also the channels which don't have a demand but which are willing to pay over the odds for carriage. The providers are in the business to make money, so they have to provide the waste of bits channels.
I agree its not the way I want it to be either

---------- Post added at 20:01 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Nobody thought 5 years ago that the bitrates for HD would get low enough to show in the home. They didn't make the HD market by over compressing. The HD market is a result of continuing improvements in compression. Well it is on Sky.