Sky HD

There's about 4 times as many pixels in an HD image over SD, if you can't see much difference I'd speak to either Sky to sort your box out or Specsavers to sort your eyes out.
 
Are you sure you haven't got a hdmi and a scart going from the box in to your tv.

My old man had it set up like this, and was watching through scart for a month, saying he could see no difference. I went round, and turned his tv to the right input, and he was much happier.
 
Are you sure you haven't got a hdmi and a scart going from the box in to your tv.

My old man had it set up like this, and was watching through scart for a month, saying he could see no difference. I went round, and turned his tv to the right input, and he was much happier.

Sounds like something my old man would do. He was all over techy stuff a few years ago but this latest wave of stuff is getting the better of him.

Just got a phone call from the old dear saying "your dad has got an iphone and needs to know how you make and answer telephone calls"
 
There's about 4 times as many pixels in an HD image over SD, if you can't see much difference I'd speak to either Sky to sort your box out or Specsavers to sort your eyes out.

Or wipe the vaseline off your eyeballs.
 
Why on Earth would you connect it to the thing with both cables?

I have no idea, I was not present at the installation. I can only assume his old sky box was connected via scart, the engineer came along, removed the old box, connected all of the cables up, including the scart and then added the hdmi. Probably never said which input to use.
 
I've never payed more than £5 for an HDMI cable and I can't see myself doing anytime in the future.
 
I have never paid for a cable. If they want my business when I buy a new product, they can throw in the cables for free

Rarely do you get HDMI bundled in though. The new Xbox 360 S for example doesn't come with one, or any other HD cable in fact. The robbing bastards.
 
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

Nah mate, you misread my post.

I have a Sky box at home, I know exactly what you mean regarding the difference. All I'm saying is I've also wathced matches with a different (i.e. Non-Sky) box at my brother's house which has all the same channels, and the difference between SD and HD is nowhere near as pronounced, while the TV is also much better - LED as compared to the LCD at home.

Maybe the non-Sky box is dodgy, but knowing how much of a ruthless operator Murdoch, NewsCorp. and BSkyB in general are, I wouldn't have put it past them to have "done something" to the SD signals coming out of the HD boxes they supply...
 
Is it just me or is the all-round quality of LED TVs somewhat exaggerated? Seems to me that because they're new, they're better - it's that simple. Full array's different, but the majority are edge-lit from what I gather. The biggest difference is that they allow them to be so thin, but then the difference in picture quality - between similar priced LEDs and LCDs - isn't clear-cut either way, is it?

Seems that the name alone makes people jump to the conclusion it's better. Not really the right thread but rotherham_red's post reminded me about it (and it's not aimed at him).
 
Nah mate, you misread my post.

I have a Sky box at home, I know exactly what you mean regarding the difference. All I'm saying is I've also wathced matches with a different (i.e. Non-Sky) box at my brother's house which has all the same channels, and the difference between SD and HD is nowhere near as pronounced, while the TV is also much better - LED as compared to the LCD at home.

Maybe the non-Sky box is dodgy, but knowing how much of a ruthless operator Murdoch, NewsCorp. and BSkyB in general are, I wouldn't have put it past them to have "done something" to the SD signals coming out of the HD boxes they supply...

It's an interesting theory but we've got a 40in Plasma with Sky HD in the living room and a (newer) 27in LCD with Sky in the front room and you can see the difference in quality very easily from walking between too rooms. Or when you're watching a Uefa Cup game on ITV4, the difference is even more pronounced.
 
It's an interesting theory but we've got a 40in Plasma with Sky HD in the living room and a (newer) 27in LCD with Sky in the front room and you can see the difference in quality very easily from walking between too rooms. Or when you're watching a Uefa Cup game on ITV4, the difference is even more pronounced.

His point is that Sky HD is a lot better than Sky SD but that might be because Sky SD is deliberately broadcast in a lower resolution, to make their HD channels seem even more tempting i.e. non-Sky SD > Sky SD

Not sure I agree, mind you.
 
Seems unlikely. Freeview SD channels look just as shit as Sky SD channels.
 
His point is that Sky HD is a lot better than Sky SD but that might be because Sky SD is deliberately broadcast in a lower resolution, to make their HD channels seem even more tempting i.e. non-Sky SD > Sky SD

Not sure I agree, mind you.

I thought he was saying it was specific to the Sky HD boxes, and he meant that normal Sky boxes had better SD quality. Reading over it he doesn't mean that, you're right! So that leaves either Virgin or Freeview that he's comparing it to, I guess? SD Virgin is better than SD Sky, maybe? I've got Virgin over in my dad's (sadly, still a fairly poor HD range in comparison) and I've noticed no discernible difference in quality between the two, I must say. Never really checked though.

Surely he can't be saying SD Freeview> SD Sky, if not purely for the fact that freeview's a bit crap, then because anyone can check that themselves by flicking over from ITV4 on Sky to ITV4 on their freeview so easily and test that.
 
It just doesn't make any sense. The majority of Sky customers are not on HD. It would be completely idiotic to give them a poorer quality signal than the competitor.

Also if it were true then either:

1) It's only been shit quality since HD was launched in order to make HD look better - in which case everyone would have noticed the drop in quality when that happened, or

2) It's always been broadcast in lower quality (for over 20 years) in anticipation that one day in the future HD would be released and Sky would want to make HD look better then.

Sounds like a tin hat conspiracy theory to me.
 
His point is that Sky HD is a lot better than Sky SD but that might be because Sky SD is deliberately broadcast in a lower resolution, to make their HD channels seem even more tempting i.e. non-Sky SD > Sky SD

Not sure I agree, mind you.

Also to note is that SD on a HDTV looks worse than through a 'normal' TV (due to to the lower resolution being 'stretched' - there's only so much up-scaling will do), so the difference is magnified when flicking between the 2 on the HDTV.

Related to this - if you watch the CL games on ITV SD, the picture is far worse than it is when you are watching it on a 'normal' TV. Also when watching a DVD up-scaled on A HDTV, the picture is superior to the SD picture on Sky, so it's certainly possible that it's Sky broadcasting at a lower resolution.

Whether it's because they purposely broadcast in a lower resolution or it's is debatable but there is a definite lowering of quality when watching SD channels on Sky on a HDTV.
 
Also to note is that SD on a HDTV looks worse than through a 'normal' TV (due to to the lower resolution being 'stretched' - there's only so much up-scaling will do), so the difference is magnified when flicking between the 2 on the HDTV.

I think that's the important point. SD does look considerably worse on an HDTV, so if you are comparing SD on an HDTV vs SD on a non HDTV (or even 720 vs 1080 TVs) then the difference in resolution is going to be pronounced.