sky and hd is it going to be any good

[john R1]

is sky hd going to be worth the wait, lets be fair the digital signal they send out now seems to be pretty bad having read a lot of the postings on here, or will it be ok when they start and go down-hill once they have enough subscribers to continue paying there way over the top prices ?

[loadsofleads]

That's the million dollar question, will they give it the bandwidth is deserves or cram as much as they can out of each transponder to save a few pennies. Personally I think they will do a decent job of it, what's the point of going to all the trouble of HD, if your going to bodge it. Only time will tell

[Starburst]

The problem with SKY's premium channels (which HD will be) is that they haven't kept up with the increasing demands of the display technologies.
I assume simple economics point to using enough bandwidth to meet the expectations of the majority of subscribers using 4:3 or 16:9 CRT's under 32" which mask many of the flaws in digital broadcasts.

HD is the answer to the problem of providing sufficently good source material to those with displays that only shine when they get the good stuff without the extra investment being wasted on millions without the TV's to do it justice.

[bayards]

Yes

Howard

[NicolasB]

I'm hopeful that the use of MPEG4 rather than MPEG2 will help with bandwidth issues.

[Nick_UK]

I'll wait and see. So far the only HD demo's that I've seen have been from local sources of unknown origin (but probably originated on a PC).

As far as I'm concerned, the playing of a HD wmv file into a HD plasma in a chain store has no bearing at all on the forthcoming quality of Sky HD transmissions.

[DanDT]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

I'll wait and see. So far the only HD demo's that I've seen have been from local sources of unknown origin (but probably originated on a PC).

As far as I'm concerned, the playing of a HD wmv file into a HD plasma in a chain store has no bearing at all on the forthcoming quality of Sky HD transmissions.

Which is quite worrying. Please, if there is a God, don't let Sky f**k up this one too!!
I think the main source of HD material for me will be HDDVD/BluRay, u know, in 2012 when they come out in the UK.

[Nick_UK]

The problem with Sky HD will be the same as normal Sky. Sky only have control over the programmes that they suppply (i.e. Sky One, Sky Movies, etc). All the other programmes will be uploaded by other companies, so I expect we will still see a variation in quality between channels.

[DanDT]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

The problem with Sky HD will be the same as normal Sky. Sky only have control over the programmes that they suppply (i.e. Sky One, Sky Movies, etc). All the other programmes will be uploaded by other companies, so I expect we will still see a variation in quality between channels.

Hopefully their HD movies will be worth paying for. Can't wait to watch LOTR Trilogy in 1080i (or whatever res it will be).

PS: You're Nick-something on Beyond3D, right? Guess who i am, not hard to figure out, i'm one of the very few to post HDTV and UK info on there...

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by DanDT

PS: You're Nick-something on Beyond3D, right?

No, sorry, I'm not. I do post on other forums, but this is the only AV-related forum I post on.

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by DanDT

Hopefully their HD movies will be worth paying for. Can't wait to watch LOTR Trilogy in 1080i (or whatever res it will be).

They do look stunning, I even watched TTT again in HD which I wouldn't consider worth my time in standard def

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

The problem with Sky HD will be the same as normal Sky. Sky only have control over the programmes that they suppply (i.e. Sky One, Sky Movies, etc). All the other programmes will be uploaded by other companies, so I expect we will still see a variation in quality between channels.

I suppose the only plus point is that for many channels HD is simply not an option, those which rely on older catalogue stuff and those that aren't even prepared to adopt widescreen.

Hopefully the 4 main broadcasters when they do offer HD will step up and produce top notch pictures since hopefully there will be no need for a mass of regional variations etc which I think is one reason Five seems to maintain the highest standards.

[loz]

well low quality HD seems to be a contradiction in terms.

They are not going to get many HD subscribers if all they do is increase the maximum possible amount of pixels, then broadcast with to much compression so it still ends up pixelated.

The ONLY justification for paying extra for HD is to get higher quality. If it isn't, there is zero else reason to subscribe. So quality has to be their number one priority surely?

[Starburst]

Originally Posted by loz

So quality has to be their number one priority surely?

Exactly.

Moving from analogue to digital entailed huge economic savings in broadcasting costs not to mention and major increase in capacity and therefore channels unable to exist in analogue were born in the digital age.
This of course has been a mixed blessing

The introduction of HD is costing SKY and eventually other broadcasters a packet and the only way to recoup these costs is to provide something way beyond what the current broadcasts are capable of.
As you say, no point otherwise and one reason why SKY will not be taking any chances with PQ as there is no money to be saved only lost if they screw it up.

[richard plumb]

i hope so. the recent demo I saw in comet (running off a PC) had some Battlestar Galactica footage in 720p which was very noisy. Hopefully just dodgy encoding.