Sky hd plus is no different

aliEnRIK

Inactive wrote: »

News to me, never witnessed that.;)

Notice also how the OP said that he could hardly tell a difference when it was first connected even though he was watching through a hdmi cable (A clear step up from scart)

Its why I dont believe in ABX BLIND testing as you only notice some improvements over time

aliEnRIK

roddydogs wrote: »

If 720p is better than 1080i, why do they bother to transmit it in 1018i, why not just stick to 720p " an opinion is not a fact.if u prefer 720p thats up to you, the people who say this usually have only a 720p set!

Its mostly dependant on the tv set. A very good one will convert to progressive very well, and if its a 1080 panel wont need to scale at all.
Thats balanced against a 720P signal which doesnt need to be converted but would need to be scaled.
A lot of tvs have poor scalers meaning the 1080i would probably be better. The very best tvs would look better in 720P

Inactive

aliEnRIK wrote: »

I witnessed that on my mates new sony within a week

But that may well have been the TV itself, not the inbuilt Freeview ( I assume that it has inbuilt Freeview ).

I have never come across an actual stand alone receiver that has gotten better with time.

roddydogs

Surely a 1080p set will show a 1080i signal as interlaced, it dosent "convert" it to 1080p?

aliEnRIK

roddydogs wrote: »

Surely a 1080p set will show a 1080i signal as interlaced, it dosent "convert" it to 1080p?

All tvs (As Ive seen upto now) have conversion software to convert all interlaced signals to progressive. My tv actually has 3 options to do this (Most just do it automatically)
So interlaced as you know shows one half of the screen then the other half (Split into sections). This are formed together before being displayed on your panel at a rate of 25 fps

aliEnRIK

Inactive wrote: »

But that may well have been the TV itself, not the inbuilt Freeview ( I assume that it has inbuilt Freeview ).

I have never come across an actual stand alone receiver that has gotten better with time.

Explain why the OP didnt see a difference to begin with

john-306

Massive difference between the two.
You either dont have a very good tv, not set up correctly, HD channel not showing HD content (press "i" on sky handset to check).
As said, Sports and Movies are where the difference is most noticable.

Inactive

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Explain why the OP didnt see a difference to begin with

I have given my thoughts on the matter at post number 12.;)

The OP hasn't said it has got any better.

Inactive

john-306 wrote: »

Massive difference between the two.
You either dont have a very good tv, not set up correctly, HD channel not showing HD content (press "i" on sky handset to check).
As said, Sports and Movies are where the difference is most noticable.

I would argue that the OP does probably have a very good TV, which will show a good SD picture, hence there being little difference between HD and SD.

I firmly believe that those that see a huge difference probably have TV's that are not capable of showing a good quality SD picture, they then do notice a big improvement when watching HD material.

sturll

Inactive wrote: »

I would argue that the OP does probably have a very good TV, which will show a good SD picture, hence there being little difference between HD and SD.

I firmly believe that those that see a huge difference probably have TV's that are not capable of showing a good quality SD picture, they then do notice a big improvement when watching HD material.

I have an excellent TV - a 42" LCD in the bedroom and a 50" plasma in the living room.

Both have shown huge improvements in HD - But like i said, most specifically in 'outdoor' programmes and sports.