buy sky+ now or wait for HD box?

slavetothegrind · 21-12-2005 07:13PM #1

I have a digibox with full subscription and was looking at getting the sky+ box with multiroom in january ( At 6.99 PM or so) but then i became aware of the launch of sky's new HD + box with huge storage disk in early new year!

So if i buy a plus box now i will have to pay out again in short order for the HD box!

Anyone aware of any dates for release yet?

The HD is of interest to me for movies on a projector hence my concern
And knowing sky they will give you no allowances for years of custom, merely treat you to a 10 minute pointless phone call should you decide to try to extract information from their incredibly patronising staff.
Don't call me Sir I work for a living!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Charlie · 21-12-2005 07:55PM

Get the sky+, it's only €69, which is a steal for an 80gb PVR. Sky HD will only be launched shortly before the world cup next year. As for a Sky HD box havin lodas of storage, the Sky+ pvr 3 box has more than enough storage for the average punter. I rarely drop below the 50% mark, plus there is still the possibilty that ywill release the other 80gb in the pvr3's. I believe that while HD telly is the future and looks amazing, there will be no value in signing up for it next year. €500 upfront and €15 pm for an extra 5 channels is very steep. Don't be afraid of getting sky+ because it seems like its "old technology" because HiDef is being launched next year. It will be at least 5 years before Hidef becomes affordable to the avrage joe( Factoring in the cost f the service and a HiDef telly). Well thats my opinion anyway.

Mossy Monk · 21-12-2005 08:30PM

charlie mchugh wrote:

€500 upfront and €15 pm for an extra 5 channels is very steep

when did Sky announce the pricing structure?

Charlie · 21-12-2005 08:44PM

Mossy Monk wrote:

when did Sky announce the pricing structure?

My bad, I should have stated that those prices are specultative estimates and insider rumors that have been posted on this and various other forums. However I believe that it is likely that sky will charge said prices initially when Sky HD is launced.

watty · 21-12-2005 11:50PM

The Sky HD uses a lot more storage, hence bigger disk needed.

Next year only 3 or 4 HD channels.
Decent HD TVs madly expensive.

Wait for 2007 or 2008 unless you are (a) Madly rich, (b) Very impatient.

Go for Sky+ now if youare always likely to subscribe to a premium channel.

If you might only watch FTA Satellite (BBC, ITV and others) then there are better PVRs without a monthly rental. For this too I would wait and see what the BBC ITV platform will be

Charlie · 21-12-2005 11:56PM

watty wrote:

The Sky HD uses a lot more storage, hence bigger disk needed.

Next year only 3 or 4 HD channels.
Decent HD TVs madly expensive.

Wait for 2007 or 2008 unless you are (a) Madly rich, (b) Very impatient.

Go for Sky+ now if youare always likely to subscribe to a premium channel.

If you might only watch FTA Satellite (BBC, ITV and others) then there are better PVRs without a monthly rental. For this too I would wait and see what the BBC ITV platform will be

Well said Watty.

watty · 22-12-2005 01:00AM

I try...

Some people find me very trying

legend99 · 22-12-2005 09:12AM

watty, is that 69 euro upgrade to + and multiroom offer still ongonig?

ixtlan · 22-12-2005 10:17AM

Yes, get the Sky+. You can't really go wrong with the €69.

There are no confirmed details about SkyHD yet. Could be €15 per month, could be free with Sky World. The reason they might go with the free with Sky world is that after the Sky+ pricing changes a lot of people would wait for something similiar with SkyHD, like me.

The guys are right that it will be several years before HD is mainstream, but it people on forums like this tend to be the ones at the bleeding edge. 2007 would be a good time, if I can resist the urge. I guess take-up will depend largely on Sky's pricing policy, and on HD-ready TV purchases. They however do seem to be flying off the shelves.

Ix.

watty · 22-12-2005 04:50PM

Most of the so called HD Ready TV are actually AMERICAN HD resolution. They resample the European 1080 line down to 720 lines. It reduces quality and creates a small degree of artifacts.

If I was paying install & Sub for HD Pay TV, I'd want toi actually see it in full glory.

Mossy Monk · 22-12-2005 05:54PM

isnt Sky using 720 lines?

watty · 22-12-2005 06:13PM

I hope not. It might be good to go from 480 to 720, (USA), but 576 line to 720 isn't much improvement. Not worth it.

That is why ALL the German services are going to be 1080 line MPEG4 (only the tests have been MPEG2 while they waited for new chips).

European experts regard 1080 line as HD ENTRY LEVEL.

I know Sky like Proprietary, but I can't see them doing such a low fi "HD" service. Sky UK and Sky Italia would be a laughing stock of Europe.

slavetothegrind · 22-12-2005 08:54PM

Thanks guys for the response!

I think I'll go ahead with the sky+ box based on advice from y'all.

It's really from the projector point of view that high def would be of interest but the expense may not be justifiable at first launch.

I do think that seeing as i am paying top whack for the full subscription Sky could give us a break on the pricing of HD but they won't!!!!

When we all have 200mbs broadband they will cease to be so dominant and we should benefit from real competition as program makers can market direct to us!

legend99 · 29-12-2005 10:39PM

ok, so when does the 69 euro offer for + upgrade when going multiroom end? I can't tell from the sky website...surprise surprise? Second, is it only direct from Sky you can get this, or is it available from independents?
Next, I already have a QUAD so where does that leave me as the install is literally running the cable and plugging the box in...

feck, this would seem to imply (judging from sterling price for UK) that 69 euro offer is gone???

http://existing.sky.com/offers.asp as it says 89 sterling???

daveirl · 29-12-2005 10:54PM

This post has been deleted.

legend99 · 29-12-2005 11:44PM

FECK FECK FECK
Just rang Sky...was told the 69 eurp offer to upgrade to multiroom with Sky+ is over...I could have sworn it was on until Dec 31....

mjsmyth · 30-12-2005 12:36AM

Buy now and sell me your old Sky box for 50euro!!!!

MJ

Skyuser · 30-12-2005 01:57AM

Be cool .... get a HD Box !!

daveirl · 30-12-2005 02:59AM

This post has been deleted.

Ronan|Raven · 30-12-2005 09:12AM

Am I the only one not all that bothered about hd?

DMC · 30-12-2005 09:23AM

/me waves in support.
Keeping up with new technology, having to change your video/DVD Player/DVD Recorder/TV/LCD TV/Plasma TV/ etc...

Load of arse, tbh.

pH · 30-12-2005 10:54AM

Keeping up with new technology, having to change your video/DVD Player/DVD Recorder/TV/LCD TV/Plasma TV/ etc...

Load of arse, tbh.

I'd invite you out to see 720p on a big screen (panny ae500) ... only the very cynical would fail to be impressed.

watty wrote:

I hope not. It might be good to go from 480 to 720, (USA), but 576 line to 720 isn't much improvement. Not worth it.

Given the interlacing factor (and I won't bore you with the details of bob deinterlacing) the effective resolution of PAL (on a plasma/LCD panel) is more like 288 lines, so 720p is a BIG improvement over standard PAL resolutions.

also 1080i is not a huge jump up from 720p
1920 X 1080 = 2,073,600
1280 X 720 = 921,600

but remember 1080i is interlaced so that only half the lines are sent (a field) giving
1920x520 = 998,400 pixels

So the *information content* (detail) in the picture on a frame by frame basis is roughly equivalent - 1080i has a slight edge.

DMC · 30-12-2005 11:23AM

pH wrote:

I'd invite you out to see 720p on a big screen (panny ae500) ... only the very cynical would fail to be impressed.

I'm not saying that I wont be impressed, of course I am, but I'm sick of being an early adopter of new technology. It costs too much to keep upto date, especially when standards are agreed to, then when they are mass marketed, it becomes transparent that a new device is better, and you are better off holding off for that until becomes standard and so it goes on.

You could say that for 20 years, from 1969 to 1989, you could get away with the same basic colour TV and never change it once. You could own a TV bought in 1969 and still be as good a what was produced in the 1980's.

Then you had remote controls, teletext, NICAM, cable, satellite, and then the digital era, and all the changes that has occured since with video/DVD's etc....

Last New Years, I bought a 32" Sony 100Hz widescreen CRT. Now its out of date and out of style. LCD's and Plasmas are in and cheaper etc.... But it does the job for me, and I dont intend to change that TV for its lifetime, and I hope it has a good long life (you wont get a TV lasting 20 years now, thats for sure)

And I see the pros/cons here about which standard is best; 1080 or 720 etc... so HD won't happen for me for a few years, I'm gonna sit this one out.

pH · 30-12-2005 11:52AM

I can see your point, being an early adopter of technology is expensive, and you can jump on the wrong bandwagon - remember Betamax, laserdisk and 8-track anyone?

Even at the creation of TV there were 2 competing standards and some people spent a lot of money on an obsolete system.

I can remember TVs without remote controls - you had to get off your backside to change the channel, I remember the novelty of TV that didn't start late afternoon and stop at 11:30 pm, the introduction of huge clunky toploading VCRs etc etc.

The point I was making was that it's not just about keeping up, things like remotes, nicam, vcrs, pvrs and now HTDV are not just fashion items, something to buy to keep up with the neighbours, each has moved the TV watching experience forward.

daveirl · 30-12-2005 12:37PM

This post has been deleted.

watty · 30-12-2005 08:13PM

There may only be 288 lines per field, but it is the 576 line frame that counts.

For NTSC, Deinterlacing etc IS an issue, for PAL it isn't unless you are trying to watch a PAL video insert on a 60Hz progressive screen (i.e. video window on a PC).

BTW I tried my PC video screen at 100Hz and of course all the de-interlace artifacts vanish.

It can't be said often enough:
INTERLACE is NOT an issue for PAL on a 25/ 50 / 100 frame rate screen that supports interlace.

Unless the screen you have for XBox 360 supports NATIVE 1080i and NATIVE 720p, one or other will look slighty better. As you sure about X360 doing a native 1080i?

Actually iby late 1950s there where at least 4 B&W TV standards (405UK, 819 France, 525 USA, 625 Germany). Now there are a lot more TV standards!

The last year Sony CRT likely gives a better image than LCD or Plasma and much better for 4:3 material (variable native resolution unlike fixed pixels of LCD/Plasma). It will outlast plasma screens bought in 3 years time.

If as seems likely some stuff uses USA entry level of 720p and some stuff uses European entry level of 1080i, then you want a screen that does both decently. If a screen does 1080p then it can do both natively with option for smaller image and no rescaling artifacts fro 720p.

1920 x 1080i (Europe) and 1280 x 720p (USA / Japan) are ENTRY level HD.

Most 1080i gear ought to do 1080p and 720p.

Most native 720p screens will display 1080i, but in nothing like as good quality as it is resampled and converted from 1920 x 1080i to 1280 x 720p.

Have you seen what an 800 x600 SVA video projector does to an 1024 x 768 image?

watty · 30-12-2005 08:21PM

See
http://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesarticles2005/articles20051003-04.html

and
http://www.digitalhomemag.com/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=36855&subsectionid=1308

It seems that XBox 360 contrary to what some Sony enthusists say also does
1920 x 1080i and and 1280 x 720p

Sky are hedging bets by making their HD receiver support all the exsiting Sky DVB resolutions and 1920 x 1080i 25Hz and 1280 x 720p 50Hz.

German payTv and FTA would seem to be going for 1920 x 1080i as HD format.

All HD by mid 2006 in Europe will be a variant of MPEG4 rather than the MPEG2 used since 2004 in Europe for tests etc.

mjsmyth · 31-12-2005 12:32AM

I posted earlier in the week about buying a new TV. I bought a Beko, yeap thats right, a Beko. 32" CRT for 333Euro. The picture is fine and the only fault I have with it is that it only has 2 scarts (1 rgb), so I have to use an external scart box to keep everything connected.

I did think about going down the route of buying a HD ready LCD/Plasma, but I really could not justify the extra 1000 or so required for a 32" screen. There really is no point at the moment, my receiver does not do HD and since I only bought it earlier this year, I will not be upgrading it for a while. I don't have an X Box 360 yet (I stress the yet part).

I would imagine within the next 3 years HD TV will be really be the norm (only my opinion, I don't work in the sat. business, but I doi work in the IT industry and if they are even vaguely similar, it normally takes that long for things to filter thru to joe bloggs). If this turns out to be the case, well then obviously I will revisit the situation and in all probability buy a HD screen.

Just my tuppence worth.........

MJ

Sponge Bob · 31-12-2005 01:14AM

bought a 28" Black Diamond last year for €280 incl delivery while I hog the sideline for a while waiting for the dust to settle I suspect 1080i at a decent refresh rate will be the sticking point along with dvi support etc .

I spent the money I saved on one of these instead , outstanding

pH · 31-12-2005 10:35AM

watty wrote:

It can't be said often enough:
INTERLACE is NOT an issue for PAL on a 25/ 50 / 100 frame rate screen that supports interlace.

I really don't understand that statement, what exactly to you mean by 'INTERLACE is NOT an issue'? Do you mean they don't have to deinterlace?

Quote from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlace

"All displays except for CRT screens must deinterlace."

Can you give me a link to an authority.

Have you seen the difference with your own eyes between a PAL DVD and a 720p HD source on a decent panel or projector?

watty · 31-12-2005 11:48AM

If your refresh rate is exactly twice the interlaced source refresh rate, de-interlace isn't an issue.

The serious problem is moving edges when the frame rate of interlaced source does not match frame rate of a differently organised display.

The big interlace issue is NTSC or any 30fps video from Film source. You end up with a video frame where alternate lines come from two different film frames. It is horrible on moving vertical edges etc.

It is true that a CRT display can be truely interlaced or progressive. Hence I'm glad my big CRT does NATIVE PAL and NTSC. Conversion of NTSC video (Satellite, DVD, VHS) to PAL isn't pretty either. But if it is Film source then PAL is better.

A DLP, LCD or Plasma display is technically neither NATIVELY interlaced or progressive! The method of updating the display can be multiple rows or columns depending on technology and construction. All non-CRT displays must put the video into a frame store and then update the display from this. How the display is updated depends also on the native internal refresh rate which to avoid problems with interlace is best an exact even multiple of the video frame rate (including the actual video frame rate), i.e. 30, 60, 120 Hz refresh or 25, 50, 100Hz refresh.

I have used PAL DVD and PAL DVB-s on Hires video projector also XVGA (similar to HD 60fps progressive) on the same projector. Interlace is not an issue for PAL.

I have used HD 1080i 25 and "PAL" 576i 25 DVB-s on a UXVGA screen running at 60Hz refresh, both CRT & LCD. The result is VERY poor compared with screen running 25fps. The NTSC DVB-s transmissions same as watching on an NTSC TV set. (Poorer colour than PAL (too vivid reds) and video source OK but interlace artifacts on film sources). Running programs / viewers with "BOB" etc on improves PAL display as does "Descaler" TV viewer. Changing custom settings in Media Player helped playing interlaced PAL MJPEG AVIs.

On same PC with screen at 100Hz refresh the PAL analog source and PAL DVB-s source (Internal TV tuner and internal PCI satellite cards) are all perfect. The MJPEG PAL AVIs are perfect in Windows Media Player. Of course now the NTSC sources are terrible without de-interlace, motion estimation, BOB etc...

If a Flat panel can NATIVELY do 50Hz or 100Hz then PAL or HD1080i 25 or HD720p50 is not a problem.

If a Flat panel can NATIVELY do 60Hz then NTSC or HD720p60 is not a problem.

If a Flat panel has a FIXED Native refresh (some do) and relies on frame rate conversion and de-interlace (Deinterlace ALWAYS needed for frame rate conversion) then which ever modes are not related to the Native Refresh are a problem.

If ANY screen (even CRT) has not enough lines or the lines need resampled to display you will get some artifacts and loss of quality even if the image is progressive. If the image is interlaced then the loss of quality may be greater. IF the screen (ANY TYPE) has same number of lines and same or even multiple refresh rate then interlace does not affect quality, except in case of 30 fps using 3:2 pull down from Film.

Most LCD and Plasma sold recently are only 720 lines. They thus need to deinterlace and resample to 720 from 1080i. If they had 1080 lines then it doesn't matter if it is interlaced.

Summary:
The worst issue is converting non-even integer related frame rates. This is exacerbated if the source is interlaced or the destination is interlaced.

The second worst issue is resampling the lines in a Frame (480 <--> 576, 720 <--> 1080 etc).

Regular DVD / DVB and Analog in Europe is 576 active lines. Converting Euro 1080 or 576 line to 720 lines for the overpiced Plasma and LCD in the shops over the last year is not pretty.

A big 1920 x 1080p 50 quality display can afford to display 1280 x 720 natively (best quality but a black border all around) OR resample it (since it is "p" this isn't too hard), less quality but picture fills screen. 576 x 2 = 1152 lines. The screen can either interpolate and slightly chop top and bottom or do a resample at slightly lower quality. Any decent 1080p 50 screen can do 1080i 25 with no loss of quality.

However a 720p 50 native display can't do either regular PAL (576i) or the entry level Euro 1080i without significant artifacts and loss of quality!

If the display is really natively a US/Japan 720p60 then ALL euro sources will look rotten (576i, 720p50, 1080i50 etc).

I haven't even addressed issues of horizontal resolution!

ethernet · 31-12-2005 01:47PM

Naturally enough, it's going to take a good few years to catch on. A lot of ordinary "Joes" are quite happy with their 32" 50 Hz TVs.

I only saw HD for real the last day. Was in Currys and saw that famous Samsung [42", I think]. I wasn't too impressed when I got up close. They had what looked like a DVD player connected [by HDMI] to the TV. I'd seen the footage before -- a ship going past the Statue of Liberty.

I recall another poster referring to this link not too long ago. HD is ageing already! URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video[/URL

Sponge Bob · 31-12-2005 01:51PM

watty wrote:

If the display is really natively a US/Japan 720p60 then ALL euro sources will look rotten (576i, 720p50, 1080i50 etc).

For those with sore heads

the 50 and 60 refer to the 60 hz AC signal in the US and 50Hz AC in Europe which were used as clocks over the years and are still with us .

A device optimised for the US will use 60 as a clock, transmit 30 frames a second (30fps) and will therefore whack a frame on screen every second clock cycle or interlace which means even lines on one clock cycle and odd number lines the next . Europe is 25fps which uses 50hz as clock, same principle.

60 into 50 does not go and thats when the funky stuff starts.

The lowest refresh rate divisible by both 60 and 50 is 300 but a native 300hz TV has not yet come to market, 100-120 is the best we can get.

Ina way the holy grail, capable of everything , would be 300hz and with 1080p and 1080i support. Nice but vapourware.:p

pH · 31-12-2005 03:42PM

watty wrote:

If your refresh rate is exactly twice the interlaced source refresh rate, de-interlace isn't an issue.

watty, without being rude, just because you keep posting this doesn't make it true. I can't find any reputable AV site saying anything even remotely similar to this. Can you post some supporting links that back this up please.

This is also confused by mentioned "refresh rate" for LCD panels, LCD panels don't have refresh rates, so I really don't understand what you're saying.

Also back to the 1080i vs 720p debate:

This explains, for example, why HDTV standards such as 1080i (1920x1080, interlaced) in most cases deliver a poorer subjective quality than 720p (1280x720, progressive).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_scan

watty wrote:

A DLP, LCD or Plasma display is technically neither NATIVELY interlaced or progressive!

Some links to back this statement up please! I have never seen or heard of an interlaced LCD panel.

If a Flat panel can NATIVELY do 50Hz or 100Hz then PAL or HD1080i 25 or HD720p50 is not a problem.

Once again i think you're confused on how LCD type panels work. There is no refresh rate needed.

Since LCD monitors do not employ phosphors, refresh rate is not a concern. Basically, the transistors in the LCD remain open or closed as needed until the image changes. This can be a point of confusion for some consumers, however, since most graphics cards still "ask for" a refresh rate setting. This is due to the analog nature of existing graphic cards (see "Inputs" section) and their support for CRT displays. While refresh rates do not apply to LCD monitors, most LCDs are set up to accept any settings from 60Hz and above.
http://www.necdisplay.com/support/css/monitortechguide/index04.htm

Anyway this is getting into weird areas, with you appearing to be stating the exact opposite of everything I understand to be true.

My original post is was purely to make the statement that 720p on a large 720 line plasma/LCD/DLP looks a lot better than PAL, it is a *big* step forward and produces a much better picture, and that 1080i is not much of an improvement over 720p, in fact subjectively many prefer the 720p picture over 1080i. And no I'm *not* talking about a 1080i picture downscaled onto a 720 line display.

All i can suggest is to have a read of this : http://www.vxm.com/Progvsinter.html

Links, Links and more links please ....

watty · 31-12-2005 07:07PM

Yes you have to deinterlace for a LCD, DLP or Plasma. But internally they are NOT progressive scan.

Any multiplexed display device (LED alarm clock to Plasma screen) has a native refresh rate.

Some LCD. DLP and Plasma panels have a FIXED refresh rate. Others have a very, very limited choice. Generally the fixed rate is 60Hz for any PC device or USA products.

Hopefully European display devices would have a 50Hz or 100Hz internal refresh rate.

A very few quality LCD/DLP/Plasma devices can refresh at 50Hz AND 60Hz related rates.

If the native refresh is 60Hz and you receive 720p 50Hz the display device must frame rate convert.

If the native refresh is 60Hz and you receive 1080i 25Hz the deinterlace and frame conversion is problematic. Even with very good deinterlace there are a lot of degradation compared with progressive.

If the native refresh is 50Hz or 100Hz, then while the 1080i 25 still needs to be deinterlaced, this is not an issue. Standard chipsets will do this and image will be similar to interlaced CRT quality as no frame rate conversion is needed.

ALL LCD/DLP/Plasma displays use some form of multiplex. I have designed these things. You can't have 1920 x 1080 wires = 2 million pixels = 6 million cells for RGB. To improve response time the whole display may be in two or even four parts, increasing the time for each switch by up to 4, though this quadruples the number of connections. A smaller lower resolution LCD may be multiplexed in one part however.

If the native rate of transferring from the frame buffer memory (containing a progressive or deinterlaced copy of image) is not equal or double etc the exact rate the fram buffer is updated, then you will get frame rate conversion temporal artificats. If the source was interlaced then the artifacts are magnified, the comb artifact of Fim 24 fps to NTSC interlace 30 fps being a common visual example.

720 p is a bit better than PAL 576i and a LOT better than 480i NTSC. 1080i is a LOT better than PAL. That is why European broadcasters regard 1080i 25 fps as entry level HD and the USA / Japan regard 720p 60fps (to aviod classic NTSC 3:2 pull down artifacts from Film) as Entry Level.

It this was untrue why where ALL the trail broadcasts of HD in Europe 1080i? I know of none in 720p50 mode. It is likely the main source of Sky 720p50 material will be USA transcoded 720 line source material.

The Skybox does 720p 50 and also 1080i 25.

Almost all European HD output is and will be 1080i 25.

Conclusions
All I'm argueing is that if you really must be a pioneer now, at least check that the HD display will do NATIVELY:
1) 720p50 using full screen resample AND border 1:1 pixel modes

2) True 1080 lines, not resampling 1080 down to 720 lines

3) 1080i 25 (Satellite) and 1080p 50 (Sony PS3) without frame rate conversion (Native 50Hz or 100Hz).

4) True internal 50Hz or 100Hz refresh, not conversion to 60Hz.

5) If you plan on watching NTSC DVDs that it does 480p 60 and has ability to do a native 60Hz internal refresh.

6) Forget about HD altogether unless very rich or very impatient. Get a Sky+

I wouldn't worry too much about NTSC DVB HD satellite or cable (60fps) unless you are moving to North America, Brazil, Japan or US Forces base in Germany.

BTW I expect in 2007 or 2008 the organic LED display to replace Plasma (which have a short life). The LED display are brighter, more accurate pastel shades and more flexible refresh rates (50, 60, 100, various PC modes).

Meanwhile if I get rich enough to get a proper HD setup I will go for a projector preferably 1200 lines resolution or higher and a good zoom lens (vary picture size from 28" 4:3 to 60" 16:9 depending on content).

pH · 31-12-2005 07:57PM

watty wrote:

720 p is a bit better than PAL 576i and a LOT better than 480i NTSC. 1080i is a LOT better than PAL. That is why European broadcasters regard 1080i 25 fps as entry level HD and the USA / Japan regard 720p 60fps (to aviod classic NTSC 3:2 pull down artifacts from Film) as Entry Level.

Back to the heart of the issue here, and some links to back this up would be nice!

What I'm saying:

720p and 1080i are very similar in subjective viewing quality. There are valid arguments that one is 'slightly' better than the other (motion rather than static detail) but either way the difference is not huge.

Either of them is a huge improvement over interlaced PAL.
Anyone doubting this may turn up at my house to see 720p compared to a very nice interlaced DVD picture!

http://alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
http://www.projectorcentral.com/video_signals.htm
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_301-editorial.html
http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=245&p=2

digitaldr · 01-01-2006 11:43PM

pH as the proud owner of a Hitachi 32ld7200 I have to agree with you - HD is outstanding - I've downloaded a few trailers on my XBOX 360 from xbox live. Got the TV in Dixons Jervis St last week - €1900 (was €2300 pre-sale!). They now only have the display model left. Interestingly I had ordered online from www.tvandvideodirect.co.uk in August but they phoned me a couple of months ago to say they didn't when they'd be getting more stock.He said that a lot of the major manufacturers are now preferentially supplying high street stores as apparently they showcase their products (with dodgy sky news RF feeds!) see this link too
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9558-1872549,00.html

Anyway the Dixons sale price was €80 more than the internet one.

watty · 02-01-2006 02:40PM

pH wrote:

Back to the heart of the issue here, and some links to back this up would be nice!

What I'm saying:

720p and 1080i are very similar in subjective viewing quality. There are valid arguments that one is 'slightly' better than the other (motion rather than static detail) but either way the difference is not huge.

Depends what the native resolution of your screen is. If the Screen doesn't do 1080 physical lines and doesn't have internal 50Hz or 100Hz native refresh (Multiplex speed actually), then you won't see much difference or the 720p can look better.

Really it is irrelevent how much difference there is between 720p50 and1080i25. You have no choice. The broadcaster decides. This is why Sky HD box does both. If the transmission is 1080i25, thats what the box outputs at best quality and what your display must show properly. If the transmission is 720p50, then that's what you need instead.

I'm not arguing we should use one or the other. Both formats will be on different channels on Sky HD, but NOT for the SAME channel. i.e. Discovery might be 720p and BBC 1080i. Maybe even Nat Geo might change for different programs. I don't know.

I'm argueing that most of the TVs sold as HD ready last year are a huge waste of money:

* If it isn't huge, then in a normal sitting room viewing distance you can't see the improvement (For TV, not Gaming or PC viewing).

* IF it can't do 1080 lines and 720 lines at 1:1 or better then you are missing out on transmitted quality.

I'm not impressed at advertising that says nowhere the resolutions and refresh rates NATIVELY or EVEN by resampling. Almost all I have seen simply say HD ready. This is not good enough and is deliberatre because most sets do NOT properly display 1080i25 or 1080p50.

It is similar to the SCAM where original £4000 Plasma 48" TVs sold had only 480 line native resolution (576 lines needed). The piture was only OK viewed across a large hall, shop or Mall and rubbish in the living room.

No-one talks about Plasma life or if the LCD screens have replaceable backlights (1/2 brightness every 4000 hrs roughly). Or how much a back light might cost to replace, if possible.

Plasmas simply have NO replacable major parts. You buy a new one.

ALL DLP and LCD projectors DO have replaceable lamps.

Be a pioneer, but know the risk and understand how models in 6 months time (to 1 or 2 years) won't just be cheaper but give incredibaly better images.

At the 2500 Euro best value is a projector.

slavetothegrind · 02-01-2006 07:03PM

Thanks a million for the info guys!!!

I have armed myself with the information above with a view to buying a HD capable projector.

Another question occurs to me,

Are we going to get HD resolution movies on DVD as standard anytime soon?

PS IF anyone out there has a pj and has posted a review or opinion i would very much appreciate a link? With special reference to the outlet you bought it from!!!

Sponge Bob · 02-01-2006 08:03PM

joeclif wrote:

Are we going to get HD resolution movies on DVD as standard anytime soon?

LOL , read around about the DVD standard war (shipping product this month) between BluRay and HDDVD

Grossly mutually incompatible formats may I add

watty · 02-01-2006 08:53PM

Though unlike the Betamax/VHS/Video2000 fiasco you will get laptops, PCs and standalone players that do DVD, DVD HD and Bluray.

Anyones guess when you'll see writers.

The different DVD writing formats looked dodgy, but now you can get writers to do ANY format, of course players are more fussy. OK for your own, pick format that works best (I find DVD-R is best, DVD+R no so good and DVD RW terrible, but it depends on your own gear and brand of media).

Sponge Bob · 02-01-2006 09:17PM

OR recorders this month Watty at the Consumer show in Vegas

AND recorders will need 2 lasers this time I believe available 2007 or 2008 ????

watty · 02-01-2006 09:27PM

YOU can someplace buy a VHS tape based HD digital recorder though for some while ... used for 720p60 in Japan and USA.

I haven't seen a HD hard Disk PVR though. Never looked either.

buy sky+ now or wait for HD box?

Comments