Will Sky go 1080i 50Hz or 60Hz?

mattmarsden

Prominent Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
159
Points
419
Age
46
I think 60Hz makes sense as the vast amount of their programming is from the states, also is more compatible with existing hardware.
 
That would be my hope too. I wonder whether the digibox would support downscaling to PAL resolution, which might make them favour a 50Hz signal :(
 
Hi,

I think Sky will go for 720p50, although 1080p50 would be better! ;) I'm sure the HD STBs will allow a range of output resolutions to choose from.

Steve
 
It'll be 1080i50, there are too many technical problems about running 60i in the UK (or 50i in the US for that matter -- try filming with a UK video camera in the US and watch the images flicker in the right sort of lighting) -- especially when they'll need to produce 576i50 downconverts for normal viewers.

As for most HD programming about, it's all 1080p24 within a 1080i60 carrier (ie 3:2 pulldown), this can just as easily be transmitted as 1080i50 with no difference in quality (if anything it'll look smoother). Also I suspect at first HD wil be limited to events via PPV (e.g. the World Cup) or moviews anyway. Do not expect SkyOneHD in 2006, it might happen but I suspect not.

The bigger question is, will SKy use MPEG2 (I hope not)

Steven
 
Any idea when Sky will announce, or make up their mind which format to go with please?
 
I suspect SKY and their manufacturing partners (PACE and maybe Thompson) are pretty close to finalising the specs right now, it may not be made public due to the licensing and contracts. You only have to look at the SKY+160 to see how close they play it to their chest at times although that may be down to the fact it was noothing to brag about:)
 
Thanks Starburst.
I get the impression sometimes from these forums, that they've already made up their minds!
 
StevenBagley said:
It'll be 1080i50, there are too many technical problems about running 60i in the UK (or 50i in the US for that matter -- try filming with a UK video camera in the US and watch the images flicker in the right sort of lighting) -- especially when they'll need to produce 576i50 downconverts for normal viewers.

As for most HD programming about, it's all 1080p24 within a 1080i60 carrier (ie 3:2 pulldown), this can just as easily be transmitted as 1080i50 with no difference in quality (if anything it'll look smoother). Also I suspect at first HD wil be limited to events via PPV (e.g. the World Cup) or moviews anyway. Do not expect SkyOneHD in 2006, it might happen but I suspect not.

The bigger question is, will SKy use MPEG2 (I hope not)

Steven


Most HD programming is 1080i60. You can't shoot sports in 24p. Only shows that are filmed or are made to look like film use 1080p24. When using 1080p24 you have to speed it up to play it at 1080i50 and have no loss in quality. If you convert electronically 60Hz to 50Hz you lose about 20% of quality as 10 fields have to be removed every second.

Sky will definitely use 50Hz as it too much of a problem using 60Hz in a country where everything is 50Hz.
 
StevenBagley said:
It'll be 1080i50, there are too many technical problems about running 60i in the UK (or 50i in the US for that matter -- try filming with a UK video camera in the US and watch the images flicker in the right sort of lighting) -- especially when they'll need to produce 576i50 downconverts for normal viewers.

Mexico and Chile both use NTSC despite the fact that their electricity frequency is 50Hz. I read somewhere that the notion that fluorescent lights flicker at the line rate is a myth: they actually flicker at twice the line rate (100/120Hz). Modern lighting that uses electronic ballasts flickers at 20,000 to 60,000Hz, which is surely undetectable. Note that I don't claim to be an authority on this subject; it's just what I read.

As for Sky using 60Hz, even showing ads in widescreen is currently beyond them, so the idea that they would use anything other than 50Hz HD is just wishful thinking. Anyone hoping for 60Hz HD broadcasts in Europe should emigrate to the US or Japan.

What I really want to know is whether Sky will use 720p or 1080i. Anyone taking bets?
 
Surely most of the American shows that Sky One broadcast are 1080i aren't they. This will be the decideing factor imho, more American programmes are shown on sky than European ones. I think and hope 1080i, 1080p would be nice but let's not get carried away.

loadsofleads :thumbsup:
 
Quickbeam said:
Mexico and Chile both use NTSC despite the fact that their electricity frequency is 50Hz. I read somewhere that the notion that fluorescent lights flicker at the line rate is a myth: they actually flicker at twice the line rate (100/120Hz). Modern lighting that uses electronic ballasts flickers at 20,000 to 60,000Hz, which is surely undetectable. Note that I don't claim to be an authority on this subject; it's just what I read.

As for Sky using 60Hz, even showing ads in widescreen is currently beyond them, so the idea that they would use anything other than 50Hz HD is just wishful thinking. Anyone hoping for 60Hz HD broadcasts in Europe should emigrate to the US or Japan.

What I really want to know is whether Sky will use 720p or 1080i. Anyone taking bets?

Mexico uses 120V/60Hz for electricity, just like US.
 
MPEG 2 is fine (take DVD for example) if the bitrate is high enough, surely. Unlike the blocky pictures digital TV puts out now, what ever the platform.
 
It is MPEG-2 they send out now (MPEG-2 Program Stream) , that's the problem.
 
CKNA said:
Mexico uses 120V/60Hz for electricity, just like US.

Okay, obviously my source was inaccurate, but I found several sources that state that Chile is 50Hz but uses NTSC, unless you can show otherwise. The other point is that NTSC/720p/1080i does not operate at the line rate, but at 59.94Hz, so it is no exactly in sync with the electricity system anyway.

MPEG-2 would be fine for Sky's HD provided the bit rate is high enough.
 
Chile does use NTSC & 220/50Hz mains
Mexico uses NTSC & 110-125/60Hz mains
 
vonhosen said:
It is MPEG-2 they send out now (MPEG-2 Program Stream) , that's the problem.

Why?
 
Sky and the rest of the European broadcasters have the opportunity to go with MPEG4 AVC HP instead of out-dated MPEG2. Let's hope they see sense.

Steve
 
Dutch said:
Sky and the rest of the European broadcasters have the opportunity to go with MPEG4 AVC HP instead of out-dated MPEG2. Let's hope they see sense.

Steve

Why?
 
Because the new codecs like MPEG4 make better use of the bandwidth, so conequently you don't need so much bandwidth for a good picture.
 
To the end user there is little difference between mpegII and the more modern codecs, High Def video will still look as good regardless.
The advantage of the new breed of codecs are higher compression and hence lower bitrates which translates to lower transmission costs or more channels for the same outlay. The countries that have HD right now had little practical option but to adopt the very mature mpegII standard, it works perfectly well and in the US hasn't made any obvious impact on the expansion of their various providors.
In Europe they/we have a viable option with the new codecs being much closer to a mass produced and proven platform and it would not surprise me in the least if HD1 was the only "mainstream" channel of mpegII HD in western Europe.
 
I seem to remember Chile uses 625/50 but uses the NTSC colour modulation system. So there would be no flicker with mains lighting.
 
It's NTSC-M, 525/60. Evidently they must have found a way to cope with the flicker, assuming there is any.:)

Speaking of codecs, I think France has made a very bad decision in choosing MPEG-2 for their terrestial DTV. This decision rules out terrestial HDTV broadcasting in France for 15 years or more, something which will no doubt please the cable and satellite companies.
 
Rimmer said:
It's NTSC-M, 525/60. Evidently they must have found a way to cope with the flicker, assuming there is any.:)

Speaking of codecs, I think France has made a very bad decision in choosing MPEG-2 for their terrestial DTV. This decision rules out terrestial HDTV broadcasting in France for 15 years or more, something which will no doubt please the cable and satellite companies.

Is that the same for the UK also then?

I don't think using a codec that compresses even more so than MPEG 2 is a good thing, especially for HD, as picture quality will be affected to a lower standard.
 
Cliff said:
I seem to remember Chile uses 625/50 but uses the NTSC colour modulation system. So there would be no flicker with mains lighting.

Rimmer said:
It's NTSC-M, 525/60. Evidently they must have found a way to cope with the flicker, assuming there is any.

Speaking of codecs, I think France has made a very bad decision in choosing MPEG-2 for their terrestial DTV. This decision rules out terrestial HDTV broadcasting in France for 15 years or more, something which will no doubt please the cable and satellite companies.


http://www.alkenmrs.com/video/wwsce.html#C
 
Rimmer said:
Speaking of codecs, I think France has made a very bad decision in choosing MPEG-2 for their terrestial DTV. This decision rules out terrestial HDTV broadcasting in France for 15 years or more, something which will no doubt please the cable and satellite companies.




You are assuming or have more intimate knowledge of the capacity of the DTT network in France and how it compares to the UK.
Our system is crippled by not being able to infringe on the analogue network which means reduced power and coverage not to mention that there are simply no frequencies that could give additional nationwide muxes until analogue has gone.
The French may not be handicapped in this manner and as such a proven and cheap mpegII system can offer HD to the masses via mpegII in addition to a bunch of standard definition broadcasts.

I have no doubt that the decision was made with full knowledge of the benefits of the system choosen when compared to what may be viable in the next 12-36 months.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom