Sky hd - is it worth it?

BigBouncyBall

And those of you splashing out on a 93" super hi-def plasma-tron 4000:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/3d-tv-television-takes-a-technological-leap-to-the-third-dimension-802673.html

BillScarab

Matt_Nixon wrote: »

For those of you waiting for Freeview HD, you will have to wait at least until the digtial switchover starting in 2009 (could be 2012 in London) & purchase a new set-top box!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7328029.stm

Sky HD is worth it, especially if you subsidise it with £5/Month Broadband.

Maybe so but Freesat is launching this spring and will carry free to air HD content. So I still think it is worth waiting until that is launched to see A. what it actually offers and B. if Sky reduce their prices.

roddydogs

sideysid wrote: »

There is always so much misinterpreted information on mse, on any AV subject, so much so I don't actually bother to reply here much, but sometimes things grate enough for me to post.

1080p is marketing hype on any panel below 42", and resolution isn't the deciding factor.

Have a look at this article explaining resolution importance.

Have a look at this table and decide if you would even see a benefit.

Its NOT screen size thats the critcal factor, its how near to the screen you view, if your viewing a 32" from say 3' away, youll see it

sideysid

roddydogs wrote: »

Its NOT screen size thats the critcal factor, its how near to the screen you view, if your viewing a 32" from say 3' away, youll see it

erm....yes which is exactly why I posted the viewing distance chart....

The average viewing distance is around 8ft, so how many people sit 3ft from the screen, where indeed you can see the pixels anyway???
The OP asked a question based on their 32" panel, where an answer was given that a HD source wasn't worth it unless they had a 1080p even on a panel that size.

Read this from HDTV test website regarding viewing distances and then please do not contradict me by talking utter tosh.

As I said before resolution isn't the deciding factor that makes a good PQ anyway.

roddydogs

Real HD fans do indeed sit closer to the screen when a HD source is transmitted, also if youve got 1080p, set it will upscale better than a 720p, yes i know its not "True" HD, but its still better. watch an upscaled picture on a 720, then the same on a 1080p set, obviously they must be 2 equal quality sets. then see which one you can move closer to.

Win2Kuser

After recently purchasing a 42inch Toshiba 1080p widescreen LCD, I did look into SkyHD, but when I found out the prices, I told them to shove it. They wanted over £200 just for the digibox, and then £10 a month to use it. When I went through the list of channels I would get in HD (bear in mind I don't do Sky sports or Sky movies), it was something like 16 channels. I also did quite a bit of digging around on AV forums finding specs out etc.

Hardly worth it IMO.

As for the whole resolution and interlaced vs progressive thing;
you will never see 1080p broadcast, there is just too much bandwidth required. Most HD broadcast stuff is upscalled from SD or is at best 720i. Some stuff is 1080i, but not as much as you'd think.

The only real way to get decent 1080p is from bluray. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I looked at a site back in January that compared titles between HDDVD and bluray (I can't remember the site though), basically, 80% of all the bluray titles were mpeg2 format or in laymans terms upscalled sd content. 80% of the HDDVD titles were H264 HD content. There were considerably more bluray titles than HDDVD because Sony flooded the market with them, most were older films.
Unfortunately, since allegedly Sony paid 500 million dollars to Time Warner and TW produce 70% of all titles, bluray is now the new format, so it will be quite a while before tru HD takes over.