Sky HD

The Flying Potato

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
12,304
Location
The air.
I'm getting it tomorrow :D Any other Caftards have it? Will I be as impressed as I am hoping?

Does the quality hold up to BD for example? I know it should but theres a chance it could be worse because of aerials and such instead of it being straight to tv.. right?
 
The Flying Potato said:
I'm getting it tomorrow :D Any other Caftards have it? Will I be as imprkzessed as I am hoping?

Does the quality hold up to BD for example? I know it should but theres a chance it could be worse because of aerials and such instead of it being straight to tv.. right?
Click to expand...
It’s excellent. Watching SD after you've got used to HD is like smearing vaseline on your eyeballs. Most stuff is 1080i so pretty much indistinguishable from full HD. Sport in particular looks fantastic. Definitely worth the money, and the number of HD channels sky has is increasing all the time.
 
beacon said:
It’s excellent. Watching SD after you've got used to HD is like smearing vaseline on your eyeballs. Most stuff is 1080i so pretty much indistinguishable from full HD. Sport in particular looks fantastic. Definitely worth the money, and the number of HD channels sky has is increasing all the time.
Click to expand...
:lol: So true. The difference when you look at SD after watching some HD is incredible, it sounds really bad when I say it to people but I couldnt go back to SD on everything after tasting HD
 
beacon said:
It’s excellent. Watching SD after you've got used to HD is like smearing vaseline on your eyeballs. Most stuff is 1080i so pretty much indistinguishable from full HD. Sport in particular looks fantastic. Definitely worth the money, and the number of HD channels sky has is increasing all the time.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

You'll love it mate.
 
beacon said:
Most stuff is 1080i so pretty much indistinguishable from full HD.
Click to expand...

As long as interlacing artefacts can be removed, then yes, at that frame rate, you are correct. The major difference to Blu-ray will be the compression/bit-rate, so there will be more macro blocking resulting in an image that isn't quite as pristine. Whether it's noticeable to most people is another matter. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that most broadcast HD channels will use a bitrate of around 5Mbps which is different to a film on BD where it's often 40Mbps+.
 
EvilChuck said:
:lol: So true. The difference when you look at SD after watching some HD is incredible, it sounds really bad when I say it to people but I couldnt go back to SD on everything after tasting HD
Click to expand...

This is true but it doesn't hold true the other way round.

When you first start watching HD it's actually a little underwhelming. After the initial few minutes it doesn't feel any different to watching SD. It's only when you switch back that you realise how good it really is.
 
WeasteDevil said:
As long as interlacing artefacts can be removed, then yes, at that frame rate, you are correct. The major difference to Blu-ray will be the compression/bit-rate, so there will be more macro blocking resulting in an image that isn't quite as pristine. Whether it's noticeable to most people is another matter. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that most broadcast HD channels will use a bitrate of around 5Mbps which is different to a film on BD where it's often 40Mbps+.
Click to expand...

It also makes a big difference to have a good quality HDMI lead as opposed to the free rubbish they give you in the box,too many people just let Sky connect with the inferior lead and carry on watching with that but if they invest £50 in a top end lead the quality of picture is noticably better.
 
Cheltenham Red said:
It also makes a big difference to have a good quality HDMI lead as opposed to the free rubbish they give you in the box,too many people just let Sky connect with the inferior lead and carry on watching with that but if they invest £50 in a top end lead the quality of picture is noticably better.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong either way. I don't know what type of lead Sky provide you with, but maybe you'll find this interesting.

Digital Foundry vs. HDMI video - Page 1 | DigitalFoundry | Eurogamer.net
 
Sport in HD is the future

When I watch matches on Sky Sports 3&4 (only have those in SD) the picture is poor compared to matches I watch in HD.

Golf is the best sport in HD, the green looks like a carpet
 
I love it, the only thing is i got so used to the HD channels being on a certain number and then they go and change it. ESPN HD was so easy to remember being 442, 417 just doesn't have the same ring to it.
 
beacon said:
It’s excellent. Watching SD after you've got used to HD is like smearing vaseline on your eyeballs. Most stuff is 1080i so pretty much indistinguishable from full HD. Sport in particular looks fantastic. Definitely worth the money, and the number of HD channels sky has is increasing all the time.
Click to expand...
Spot on. I can't live without sky HD now. When you see a pitch on normal sky it's just a green blur. On HD you can see the blades of the grass. It's that good.
 
Got Virgin Media at my gaff but the missus has Sky HD and it's infinitely better, there are shed loads of channels and as others have said, going back to SD afterwards it's horrible.
 
Question for you cnuts (with new-ish TVs). What setting do you have your picture on while watching stuff on the HD channels? Dynamic or standard?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This is true but it doesn't hold true the other way round.

When you first start watching HD it's actually a little underwhelming. After the initial few minutes it doesn't feel any different to watching SD. It's only when you switch back that you realise how good it really is.
Click to expand...

Also mostly true, but I think the depth of blacks, the richness of colours and the detail in textures remains obvious. Watch something like V for Vendetta and the depth of blacks becomes obviously. Watch something like The Tudors and texture detail and depths of colours is obvious.

Even something like SSN looks pristine and crisp in HD.

It still makes me drool after 3 years :drool:
 
McLovin said:
Question for you cnuts (with new-ish TVs). What setting do you have your picture on while watching stuff on the HD channels? Dynamic or standard?
Click to expand...

I use custom settings on my TV, there is no way anyone can tell you what to use on your TV because it's as dependent on your environment as it is on the hardware and the source.

Get hold of a THX certified DVD or better still blue ray. They almost all have a calibration utility that walks you through the settings.

The first thing though is to be aware that TVs out of the box are set up for brightly lit TV showrooms. The brightness is too high, the contrast too low. If it's LCD the backlight will be too high also.

Search the web for TV calibration tips, there are tons. But as a guide I have my backlight as low as it will go, my brightness right down, my contrast mid to high. I prefer colder colours but that's very personal and depends on your set.
 
The picture is noticeably better than SD but compared to Blu-rays, it's visibly worse. As Pogue says, the picture is a little underwhelming at first (wel it was t us) but once you watch for a few days, you won't go back.

Not sure if you have surround, but I find the most disappointing thing is the sound - as it 'only' outputs Dolby 5.1. Compared to Dolby TrueHD/DTS on Blu-rays, it's feeble in comparison. What's worse is that the football doesn't seem to utilise even the 5.1 very well at all and there's no 'oomph' to it. ITV HD don't even do it in 5.1 and it's only 2 channel stereo.
 
izzydiggler said:
The picture is noticeably better than SD but compared to Blu-rays, it's visibly worse. As Pogue says, the picture is a little underwhelming at first (wel it was t us) but once you watch for a few days, you won't go back.

Not sure if you have surround, but I find the most disappointing thing is the sound - as it 'only' outputs Dolby 5.1. Compared to Dolby TrueHD/DTS on Blu-rays, it's feeble in comparison. What's worse is that the football doesn't seem to utilise even the 5.1 very well at all and there's no 'oomph' to it. ITV HD don't even do it in 5.1 and it's only 2 channel stereo.
Click to expand...

The only way to get 5.1 Dolby Digital from a Sky HD box (unless it has changed with recent models) is via optical. The HDMI only carries 2 channel.

You are right though it is 5.1 and not True HD, but with a decent amp you'd need to be a total audiophile to notice the difference most of the time. I don't necessarily agree with you about the football. I get noticeable crowd noise through all my surround speakers on Sky and ITV (but ITV less good)
 
beacon said:
The only way to get 5.1 Dolby Digital from a Sky HD box (unless it has changed with recent models) is via optical. The HDMI only carries 2 channel.

You are right though it is 5.1 and not True HD, but with a decent amp you'd need to be a total audiophile to notice the difference most of the time. I don't necessarily agree with you about the football. I get noticeable crowd noise through all my surround speakers on Sky and ITV (but ITV less good)
Click to expand...

I believe that the Sky box still doesn't output 5.1 through HDMI but if you've got an amp that has HDMI inputs, it'll definitely have optical ones, it wouldn't be an issue for people, bar having to get a cable.

Whilst I have the audio equipment, I wouldn't consider myself an 'elitest audiophile' but there is a massive difference between uncompressed audio on a Blu-ray and the 5.1 on Sky. Maybe not on the likes of dramas etc but watch a film with action sequences and the difference is easily heard.

And I disagree with you on the football - it's not that you don't get the crowd noise through the speakers (you obviously do) and it's not really the 5.1 that's the issue - it's the sound mixing, which I don't think is very good. It's just got no weight to is and it's really 'front heavy'. Again, it's better than none but I find it underwhelming compared to what it could be.

But at the end of the day, in England (and other some countries represented on here) the only real choice for HD programming is Sky, so you've not really got a choice but to accept it's limitations.
 
Cheltenham Red said:
It also makes a big difference to have a good quality HDMI lead as opposed to the free rubbish they give you in the box,too many people just let Sky connect with the inferior lead and carry on watching with that but if they invest £50 in a top end lead the quality of picture is noticably better.
Click to expand...

I did not know that I am using the hdmi lead that come with the HD box
 
izzydiggler said:
there is a massive difference between uncompressed audio on a Blu-ray and the 5.1 on Sky
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not arguing with you there, Linear PCM is a world apart. The bandwidth limitations of satellite TV mean that we are never going to see the BD experience on satellite HD any time soon though. That said with a decent amp, I think the sound from movies on Sky HD is pretty good.

I guess the football thing depends on your set up to a degree. I get what you are saying about the mixing, but I'm not sure that anything can be done about that unless they start having microphones all around the stadiums. Sound at football matches is always going to come from a localised area of the ground and the sound transmission will reflect that. Perhaps it's down to us having different levels of expectation.
 
pauldyson1uk said:
I did not know that I am using the hdmi lead that come with the HD box
Click to expand...

You can pay silly money though and some of it is undoubtedly Emperor's New Clothes. Worth spending £50 - 75 on cables (depending on length) but probably no more than that unless you have cash to burn. Have a look at the Mark Grant cables I linked to earlier in the thread.
 
beacon said:
You can pay silly money though and some of it is undoubtedly Emperor's New Clothes. Worth spending £50 - 75 on cables (depending on length) but probably no more than that unless you have cash to burn. Have a look at the Mark Grant cables I linked to earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

I am not 100% sure but I believe that there is no difference whatsoever (that can be seen) between cables. As HDMI is a digital signal, it either works or doesn't - with analogue signals the signal can be weakened etc with bad cabling but with a digital one, it doesn't.

You can argue about build quality so it doesn't fall apart but other than that, there's no need to spend £50+ on a cable.
 
beacon said:
Oh, I'm not arguing with you there, Linear PCM is a world apart. The bandwidth limitations of satellite TV mean that we are never going to see the BD experience on satellite HD any time soon though. That said with a decent amp, I think the sound from movies on Sky HD is pretty good.

I guess the football thing depends on your set up to a degree. I get what you are saying about the mixing, but I'm not sure that anything can be done about that unless they start having microphones all around the stadiums. Sound at football matches is always going to come from a localised area of the ground and the sound transmission will reflect that. Perhaps it's down to us having different levels of expectation.
Click to expand...

I guess it's your definition of 'good'. All I'm saying is that it could be better. I realise the limitations and why they don't/can't have TrueHD etc but those expecting a 'complete' HD package will be disappointed.

Perhaps - again I just think it's a limited experience, when it's possible to have something better.

It's still good and every time I watch a game, I don't sit thinking how bad it is, it just could be better.
 
izzydiggler said:
I am not 100% sure but I believe that there is no difference whatsoever (that can be seen) between cables. As HDMI is a digital signal, it either works or doesn't - with analogue signals the signal can be weakened etc with bad cabling but with a digital one, it doesn't.

You can argue about build quality so it doesn't fall apart but other than that, there's no need to spend £50+ on a cable.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly the argument that is put forward. Ones and zeros and all.

There are plenty of blind tests available for you to peruse on the net if you care to become 100% sure on this. Have a good read at on the forums at TV, home cinema and hi-fi reviews, news and videos - whathifi.com and you will find this debate played out endlessly. The simple fact is that it does make a difference.

izzydiggler said:
It's still good and every time I watch a game, I don't sit thinking how bad it is, it just could be better.
Click to expand...

That's right, you could go to the game.
 
Whoa, whoa, with HDMI it's not like digital broadcast TV where the signal drops completely, as the signal over HDMI isn't compressed, it doesn't go through any sort of codec that is referencing previous frames. There is no macro blocking, there is no total cut-off of the signal, but a cable is a cable, and noise can effect it changing 1s to 0s and 0s to 1s. This can change colours at certain points, etc. but it isn't going to give snow as in an analogue signal.

Read the article I posted, they tested a 1.50 cable against a 100 quid cable and there was no difference. They captured the output over both and ran an MD5 hash check on the data. It was EXACTLY the same. You only need high quality shielding for cables 3m+
 
The only reason for the price difference in HDMIs is for aesthetics purposes (and just to rip off the gullible non techno-geeks), right?

Aside from over a certain distance when disturbances in the transmission may be caused, obviously.
 
I use 4m cable for my AV, as my TV and boxes are on the opposite sides of the room. I won't pretend that was the point I was arguing though.

The point I was making (and which your link confirms) is that it is not true to say that HDMI cables either work or they don't. There is a much more detailed examination of the effects of cable length on signal quality here: Long HDMI Cable Bench Tests - Monster Cable Shootout — Reviews and News from Audioholics

When I bought my cables (3 1/2 years ago now) I had links to several double blind tests, can't find them unfortunately now, but they supported the argument that there is appreciable difference between cable types. In particular a difference in audio quality was noted. Of course, as I mentioned before as Sky HD is 2 channel only through HDMI that's not strictly relevant here.

The cables I linked to above run at around £20 for hand finished, high quality, high mechanical strength cables over standard lengths (1-2m). (I think I paid about £40 for my 4m cable)
 
I think its overrated myself. Seen a HD and an SD together on another box where the difference is very minimal. Either the box is dodgy or Sky purposely reduce the quality of SD channels on its HD box...

...And knowing Sky, I'd bet on the latter.
 
rotherham_red said:
I think its overrated myself. Seen a HD and an SD together on another box where the difference is very minimal. Either the box is dodgy or Sky purposely reduce the quality of SD channels on its HD box...

...And knowing Sky, I'd bet on the latter.
Click to expand...

Watch a match in HD for 5 minutes then switch to SD and the picture quality will look awful. I'd get a Sky Engineer out to have a look at your box.

File:HD vs SD resolutions.png - Wikimedia Commons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.