Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Womble
I beg to differ,
I have ntl, on a sony 32" widescreen, my father has sky on a panasonic 32" widescreen
Day to day its hard to tell the differance, BUT, When it comes to football and other fast paced sport, sky's picture is so much better! No blockyness around the players faces, no wishy washy greenish grass when the cameras are following fast action(please dont say its a Network/HFC/House fault!!! cos it aint!)
Thus leading me to believe they have a better bitrate or compression method
|
Or even something less sinister such as a more efficient refresh rate on the TV (100hz as opposed less)? Scart connection quality can also play a major role in picture quality.
As an example - I have sky (I don't live in a cabled area), and have two boxes connected to two 32" TV's. The TV's are different (one is Sony and the other is Samsung) and the Sony has a refresh rate of 100hz with gold plated scart leads etc..... the picture quality is marginally better than the Samsung TV... but becomes noticeable during fast paced action as you say.
Oh yeah.... Let's not forget that weather still effects the signal on Sky and during heavy wind, hail etc.. your picture may break up or freeze.
I am being honestly unbiased here - but there should be extremely little difference between the both in terms of quality. Cable should, in theory, offer better performance than a satellite stream, however I don't think that cable/fibre optic supplies have yet been used to optimum efficiency.