Non-HD programmes on HD channels - any benefit?

Scapegoat

Well-known Member
Just got HD installed before going on holiday - set a few things up to record incl Soccer AM.

This took up a staggering 16% on Sports HD1 - but its not transmitted in HD is it?

Only watching on a 26" at moment (waiting for the new 40" to be delviered) so difficult to tell if there is any benefit over the far less space heavy normal version on Sky Sports 1.

Any comments / views?
 

Starburst

Novice Member
Native SD content on a HD channel is upscaled by SKY at source and broadcast at 1080i with the corresponding mpeg4 bitrate. However if SKY can do a better job, or the STB or even your TV is very much upto the user but given the space requirments especially for a long programme I would go with the SD version.
 

Starburst

Novice Member
Do the HD channels not have more Bitrate as well though ?

SD on the HD channels look a bit better on my 32inch LCD.





More bitrate but more resolution to account for so it's not a given that the final result will look better but the theory is that SKY's studio based hardware should upscale better than the SKY HD and your own TV and given a decent bitrate should look better.

However it all comes down to your own preferences, I've preferred the SKY1 version of Nip/Tuck as opposed to the SKY1HD version (on my TV) but it all comes down to what looks best to you.

Of course with long programming the demands on hard drive space when recording upscaled HD begs the question if it's really worth it when you can upscale the SD broadcast yourself and save gigabytes of capacity and may not see any significant difference.
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
The only channels I see a difference in is Sky sports. The cricket world cup on SD is ok but not brilliant, put it on a HD channel and it does look better. Not sure why this is only on Sky sports, none of the other HD channels look any different then their SD broadcasts, maybe if you really inspected it close there may be an improvement but to the naked eye its hardly noticable and sure does not warrent chanels like SKY1HD getting lazy and showing SD material all the time.
 

AndyCob

Well-known Member
I find the SD broadcast of an originally SD program generally better than the HD upscaled version. This is especially true of 4:3 material, I have yet to figure out what on earth Sky are doing with their upscaling, I mean try comparing an episode of the simpsons on sky one and sky one HD. On HD the aspect ration is off, more like 14:9 but not 16:9 or 4:3 and the top and bottom of the picture has been croped and the quality is terrible when compared to the SD version.

My position if is not being broadcast in HD stick with the SD version, it will probaly look better and certainl;y take up less space.
 

Scapegoat

Well-known Member
Thanks for the responses - will give the upscaled versions ago when I get my big screen, but as I am already at 7% free I think I will err towards the SD versions if difference is small/non-existent.

Didn't realise that Nip/Tuck wasn't HD (only recorded it so far) - just checked the other Sky One productions we watch. 24, Bones, Rescue Me, Lost, BSG - only Nip/Tuck not in HD. Phew - Mrs Scapegoat would have thought I sold her a line just to get Sport in HD!
 

Jet_Set_Jim

Active Member
I think it very much depends on the programme - in some instances Sky upscale their SD stuff very well and it's a definite improvement (which one would expect given that for them to do it it need not be in 'real time' and they should be using top grade scaling equipment). In many instances however the SD version of things looks substantially better - the Simpsons being a prime example as AndyCob says.
 

oldman100

Active Member
The only channels I see a difference in is Sky sports. The cricket world cup on SD is ok but not brilliant, put it on a HD channel and it does look better. Not sure why this is only on Sky sports, none of the other HD channels look any different then their SD broadcasts, maybe if you really inspected it close there may be an improvement but to the naked eye its hardly noticable and sure does not warrent chanels like SKY1HD getting lazy and showing SD material all the time.

I agree 100% with your comments Neil and to be honest as a new HD subscriber it leaves me more than a tad disappointed with the current selection of Native HD channels. But hey things can only get better. :rolleyes:
 
N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
I agree 100% with your comments Neil and to be honest as a new HD subscriber it leaves me more than a tad disappointed with the current selection of Native HD channels. But hey things can only get better. :rolleyes:

Yes things can only get better, your right. FX is due to launch on HD soon, whats the betting that we get a simular channel to SKY1HD, virtually all mirrored SD and only a small amount of very average PQ HD material. You heard it here first ;)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Movies Podcast: Star Trek in 4K. Is the new boxset worth it?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom