HD on the cheap

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › HD on the cheap

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#90808 29-Sep-2011 22:12

Although I am a Sky subscriber, I am not into blockbuster films or sports. I also don't like paying more than I have to for anything. For these reasons I don't have My Sky or HD. They just aren't worth the ongoing extra monthly charges to me. This doesn't mean I don't want to get as much as I can from the technology I do have.

For example, I have a DVR. I also have a Yamaha amp. These allow me to take the standard signal from my old Sky Pace decoder and upscale it via S-Video to a component signal for the TV. The result isn't hi def, of course, but it's not far off. In fact, it looks as good or better as the picture quality I get from DVDs.

Just because I don't want to pay Sky for high definition doesn't mean I'm not interested in it. So I have put up a UHF aerial and acquired a Freeview decoder. This isn't high-hi-def, just the in-between Freeview compromise, but I think it's as good as what Sky wants me to pay for and after carefully comparing it to some DVDs and my upscaled signal, I have to say I can't see all that much difference there, either. Yes, the picture is sharp and clear, but so is the enhanced picture I get off the Pace decoder. None of it is Blu-Ray quality, but neither is it a whole lot worse. I just don't see what I'm missing.

On the sound side, I only get Pro Logic's emulated 5.1 from the stereo stream of the Sky decoder, but TV1 and 2 have recently joined TV3 in broadcasting Dolby surround on Freeview, and with Video Redo it's a snap to record films on the PVR, strip out the commercials, and enjoy the show.

If you can't live without sports or the latest blockbusters, Sky's hi def offerings may be worth your while. But even then most of Sky is still only broadcast in standard definition and I wonder just what it is that people are paying for. In my experience, the upscaled component signal can be nearly as good as high definition and supplementing that with 1080i films from Freeview keeps me from feeling too left behind. I don't really feel I'm missing that much and I would be curious to know what others think about this.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

BitSignal

Lifetime subscriber

#527456 29-Sep-2011 22:18

The big push for me to get HDi was to watch F1 in HD. So sports is the killer feature to have HD be worth it for me.

And upscaled is nowhere near as good as native. No matter how good your upscaler is (even the DVDO Edge can't do miracles). If it looks so, you might want to check your sharpness settings on your set. Maybe some calibration will help you out.

Freeview HD is great if all you watch is free-to-air content.

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

hdinsider

552 posts

Ultimate Geek

#527464 29-Sep-2011 22:30

The step up from analog TV to digital SD delivery is a bigger improvement than the step from SD to HD in my opinion. Especially if you keep the chroma and luminance separated.

Analog TV was a composite system that required these signals to be separated at the TV for display causing all those composite video effects like dot crawl and sharpness loss. The digital delivery is component all the way to the set top box and as long as you keep it that way the resolution is greatly improved.

The only problem I see with SD is that it will get less and less bandwidth (data rate and quality) as more space is taken up by an increasing number of bandwidth hungry HD channels.

The conspiracy theorists will notice that it's also in Sky's interests to sell more HD, and by squeezing the SD channels and lowering their quality, they make HD look even more worth while to buy... maybe even essential.

SD channels now have around 50% of the bandwidth they had only 5 years ago, but no one seems to notice the pixellation increase and quality drop, so it seems that SD quality will continue to fall.

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#527467 29-Sep-2011 22:31

Rikkitic: So I have put up a UHF aerial and acquired a Freeview decoder. This isn't high-hi-def, just the in-between Freeview compromise,

Isn't freeview HD fully on a par with SKY's HD offering, albeit free to air content only?

As above I want sports only and fully object to paying $50 base + $25 sport + $25 for my sky hdi just so I can get the HD capable gear and then pay + $10 for the HD ticket. Per month. By that stage they can stick it.

fahrenheit

757 posts

Ultimate Geek

#527974 1-Oct-2011 11:14

Rikkitic:These allow me to take the standard signal from my old Sky Pace decoder and upscale it via S-Video to a component signal for the TV. The result isn't hi def, of course, but it's not far off. In fact, it looks as good or better as the picture quality I get from DVDs.

Native 1080i programming on an HD capable display is vastly superior to that configuration. I think for you to be making such a comparison highlights a serious shortcoming in your setup somewhere. It sounds like you haven't raised the level of your SD to meet the standard of HD, you've compromised the potential of HD so that it looks closer to SD.

What is you display/Freeview decoder/cable type?

Jaxson

8041 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#527985 1-Oct-2011 12:07

fahrenheit:
Rikkitic: In fact, it looks as good or better as the picture quality I get from DVDs.

Native 1080i programming on an HD capable display is vastly superior to that configuration. I think for you to be making such a comparison highlights a serious shortcoming in your setup somewhere. It sounds like you haven't raised the level of your SD to meet the standard of HD, you've compromised the potential of HD so that it looks closer to SD. ?

Fully as above. DVD's are SD so saying HD looks like a DVD is not really a good thing, and is not what you should be aiming for.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#527988 1-Oct-2011 12:34

I am starting to wonder about that myself. I just don't see that much difference. I do see some, but not much.

Our HDMI is from an Orton 7000 set to 1080i. As far as I can tell, it is working correctly. Signal quality is usually reported at 100%, sometimes dropping briefly to 80%. Connection is via a short HDMI cable that came with the STB.

I think the main suspect would have to be the TV. This is a few years old now and it was one of the first big LCDs priced at an affordable level. It is a DSE G 9442 and I know it doesn't have the display quality of a newer unit, but again, it's not too bad with standard definition. Whether the set simply isn't capable of displaying full HD adequately I don't know. I have no real way of measuring that other than by looking at display models in the shops. There's no question they are brighter and sharper, but I still don't get a sense of a dramatic difference.

We don't have Blu-Ray and the TV only has an HDMI input, not HDCP.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#527989 1-Oct-2011 12:35

Rikkitic: So I have put up a UHF aerial and acquired a Freeview decoder. This isn't high-hi-def, just the in-between Freeview compromise,

Freeview|HD is HD on TV1, TV2 and TV3, unless you're looking the decoder up to the TV using a non HD link such as composite.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

fahrenheit

757 posts

Ultimate Geek

#527994 1-Oct-2011 12:58

Rikkitic: I am starting to wonder about that myself. I just don't see that much difference. I do see some, but not much.

Our HDMI is from an Orton 7000 set to 1080i. As far as I can tell, it is working correctly. Signal quality is usually reported at 100%, sometimes dropping briefly to 80%. Connection is via a short HDMI cable that came with the STB.

I think the main suspect would have to be the TV. This is a few years old now and it was one of the first big LCDs priced at an affordable level. It is a DSE G 9442 and I know it doesn't have the display quality of a newer unit, but again, it's not too bad with standard definition. Whether the set simply isn't capable of displaying full HD adequately I don't know. I have no real way of measuring that other than by looking at display models in the shops. There's no question they are brighter and sharper, but I still don't get a sense of a dramatic difference.

We don't have Blu-Ray and the TV only has an HDMI input, not HDCP.

That TV is likely 720p (HD ready) and probably has a particularly poor scaler. As it won't natively handle the 1080i signal it is receiving from the Orton box, it has to downscale to 720p (which it is no doubt doing badly).
You should try sending 720p from the Orton just to see whether or not the TV copes better when its feed something closer to native. The scaler in the Orton could also be of poor quality so you might just be juggling two flaming chainsaws.

Don't expect miracles. All this counts for naught if you are sitting far away from the TV anyways.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#528004 1-Oct-2011 13:23

I remember trying it on 720p at one point but I couldn't see any difference. I do sit up close when I'm checking for this kind of thing. I'm looking at the manual now and it gives the native resolution as 1366x768. I haven't played with it for awhile but I'll have another go.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Spyware

3761 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#528039 1-Oct-2011 16:47

hdinsider:
The step up from analog TV to digital SD delivery is a bigger improvement than the step from SD to HD in my opinion. Especially if you keep the chroma and luminance separated.

Analog TV was a composite system that required these signals to be separated at the TV for display causing all those composite video effects like dot crawl and sharpness loss. The digital delivery is component all the way to the set top box and as long as you keep it that way the resolution is greatly improved.

The only problem I see with SD is that it will get less and less bandwidth (data rate and quality) as more space is taken up by an increasing number of bandwidth hungry HD channels.

The conspiracy theorists will notice that it's also in Sky's interests to sell more HD, and by squeezing the SD channels and lowering their quality, they make HD look even more worth while to buy... maybe even essential.

SD channels now have around 50% of the bandwidth they had only 5 years ago, but no one seems to notice the pixellation increase and quality drop, so it seems that SD quality will continue to fall.

To claim that the so called digital SD signal is any improvement over analog TV is ridiculous given the Sky decoders output is analog so it can by definition not look any better. Sky SD offering is truly hideous in my opinion so I gave my box back as I don't consider the output of the silver Pace to be worth connecting to any modern TV.

I also doubt whether bitrates have decreased as much as you say but am aware that some of the channels are really substandard and an embarrassment to Sky. I wouldn't even transmit them like they are.

As for Sky's and Freeviews HD, looks adequate for a 46" or so TV. TV3 increased quality over TVNZ is noticeable and obvious that they use a higher bitrate, at least on DVB-T.

Spark Max Fibre using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+, CRS125-24G-1S, Unifi UAP, U6-Pro, UAP-AC-M-Pro, Apple TV 4K (2022), Apple TV 4K (2017), iPad Air 1st gen, iPad Air 4th gen, iPhone 13, SkyNZ3151 (the white box). If it doesn't move then it's data cabled.

hdinsider

552 posts

Ultimate Geek

#528044 1-Oct-2011 16:58

The digital delivery advantage is that it is component and not composite. Note that all SD tv is now 33% softer since widescreen Anamorphic was adopted.

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

hdinsider

552 posts

Ultimate Geek

#528338 2-Oct-2011 22:24

Average channel data rates for SD were between 5 and 8 Mb/s in 2005. Now between 2 and 4 Mb/s. Even with newer encoders and stat mux it's ugly when pictures move fast. With each Mpeg4 HD channel needing at least 8Mb/s to look ok it's easy to see where the bandwidth will be allocated.

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....