While Sky HD certainly has a lot less bandwidth to play with than BluRay, this actually has relatively little impact on image quality. (In fact, some early BluRay releases are actually MPEG2 rather than MPEG4, which use far more bandwidth for no image benefit at all!). The main difference between Sky HD and BluRay is that there's no equivalent of 1080p/24 output for films. If your TV system is capable of correctly deinterlacing 1080i/50 to 1080p/25 then this makes no difference (except for the fact that the films run slightly faster on Sky). But relatively few televisions can actually do this properly and, when they get it wrong, the picture loses vertical resolution as a result.Blu-rays win handsdown specially for movies due to bandwith.
Blu-Ray discs don't suffer from lip sync issues
Well my HTPC has a BR drive and uses the same sound system and HDTV as the Sky HD box, but ive never had any sound sinc issue with it. It only ever happens with the HD box.
Well ive never seen it on any system but one with Sky HD.
The point about lip-sync issues with SkyHD is that the audio is already delayed, and consequently no adjustment of optical delay time will fix it. This doesn't happen with BD.
The actual reason I'm posting however is that of course Sky only support DD5.1, and not any of the HD audio formats which you can hopefully find on BD.
Whether the difference is discernible to the average ear-lobe or not would no doubt be subject to the same arguments as to whether a good transfer being broadcast via SkyHD is as good as its BD equivalent...
Getting back on topic, I've yet to see a film broadcast in HD that looked better than the BD version. Some look nearly the same, but a lot look worse. Technically, there should be no appreciable difference on a like for like comparison. But given that HD broadcasts almost inevitably are pumped out at a lower bandwidth, picture quality is bound to suffer. And as more HD channels come on line I can't see this situation improving.
Yes but if you have a disk with a certain amount of programming you might as well up the bit rate to the maximum that will fit on the disk - it isn't going to cost any more. Unless of course it means an extra layer and even then it's not that much.As you say if a broadcast and BD were created from the same master then the bitrate is the main deciding factor although when we are talking reasonable screen size for homes the uber high bitrates some BD's are authored at is pure lazy encoding although if you ramp up the screen size to 100" plus then you may begin to see the ultra fine detail that is simply not going to be visible on a screen half the size.
Yes but if you have a disk with a certain amount of programming you might as well up the bit rate to the maximum that will fit on the disk - it isn't going to cost any more. Unless of course it means an extra layer and even then it's not that much.
I think this is hugely improbable. Apart from anything else, the Sky HD broadcasts are nearly always movies that are either already out on high def or are released a few months later (e.g. Zulu). In other words, there's no reason to suppose that Sky ain't using real high def transfers. What makes my mouth water is the thought that The Incredibles has had its high def remastering. If only they'd release it on BD.I saw a comment a while back from a SKY employee on another forum (anon of course) that SKY do not actually master movies to HD tapes but upscale their movie content from SD masters.