HD Ready TV - help required

DianeDiane Posts: 1,389
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I receive my tv through Sky so do I have to get a new sky hd box and pay more monthly to Sky watch the tv in HD or can i do it cheaper by buying a converter box?

Also if I'm buying a new tv do i need a HDMI cable and what does that do?

All I have is a tv, dvd player and a sky+box if that helps.

Thanks for any help
«13

Comments

  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    There's no such thing as a 'converter box'.

    To get HD you need either a Sky HD box (and pay extra if you want the premium HD channels, or pay no more and get just the free ones) - or get a Freeview HD box, and just get the free HD channels (but less than the free ones on Sky).
  • chrisjrchrisjr Posts: 33,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The HDMI lead carries the pictures and sound from the Sky box to the telly. You need one for HD channels as SCART does not do HD.
  • Chasing ShadowsChasing Shadows Posts: 3,096
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Diane wrote: »
    Also if I'm buying a new tv do i need a HDMI cable and what does that do?

    If you are buying a new TV, if you buy one with Freeview HD built into it, then you will receive the FTA high definition channels through the television's own tuner - which won't require a HDMI cable anyway.

    Though you'll still need to use HDMI if you connect any high definition external equipment (Blu Ray player, Sky HD or Freesat HD box, Freeview HD box, games console) to the TV.

    Don't pay silly money for a HDMI cable - one from the Pound Shop is just as good as the ones they sell for forty quid or so at Currys and Maplin.
  • Bill ClintonBill Clinton Posts: 9,389
    Forum Member
    A note of caution given my recent experience, "HD Ready" might well mean that you are not getting a true HD TV. The resolution is likely to be somewhere about half way between SD and HD, 720p rather than 1080p. "HD Ready" is a highly miselading term and can land you with a TV that is not actually the full HD resolution of "1920 x 1080" but rather one that is "1366 x 768"!
    For perspective, regular SD resolution is "720 x576". All it is is that the TV can accept HDMI connections!

    I bought one on Ebay where the listing stated "1920 x 1080" but it turns out that the resolution might well actually be the lower "1366 x 768" one.

    http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2012/05/29/dont-buy-a-hd-ready-telly-thinking-its-high-definition-its-not/

    Look for "Full HD".
    Although as long as you are fully aware of this, a 720 TV is still an improvement over a regular SD, and Sky HD channels don't actually broadcast at the full 1080p resolution. They are 1080i.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    A note of caution given my recent experience, "HD Ready" might well mean that you are not getting a true HD TV. The resolution is likely to be somewhere about half way between SD and HD, 720p rather than 1080p. "HD Ready" is a highly miselading term and can land you with a TV that is not actually the full HD resolution of "1920 x 1080" but rather one that is "1366 x 768"!
    For perspective, regular SD resolution is "720 x576". All it is is that the TV can accept HDMI connections!

    See my post above - sorry but that's utter nonsense, it's EXTREMELY difficult to spot any difference between 768 and 1080 TV's, with the 768 set often better.
  • Bill ClintonBill Clinton Posts: 9,389
    Forum Member
    See my post above - sorry but that's utter nonsense, it's EXTREMELY difficult to spot any difference between 768 and 1080 TV's, with the 768 set often better.

    Well if that's true I could opt for the easier life and not send the non 1080 TV I've got coming back, it sounds like a heck of a decrease in resolution for me.

    Surely a good Sony full 1080 set would be better than a 720 set at 32" as well. One advantage though of a 720 might be that it displays SD pictures better still for obvious reasons, so I've half a mind to possibly keep this TV that I hoped would be 1080 after all.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    Surely a good Sony full 1080 set would be better than a 720 set at 32" as well. One advantage though of a 720 might be that it displays SD pictures better still for obvious reasons, so I've half a mind to possibly keep this TV that I hoped would be 1080 after all.

    No such thing as a '720 set' (although there were a small number of VERY old sets that were 720) - it's an HD Ready set, and has 768 resolution.

    Even a Sony 1080 set gives little improvement over a 768 set - and then only if you're VERY close to it.

    To view HD on a 32 inch set you want to be about 5 feet away (or closer) - to get benefit from a 1080 set you would need to be probably only 3-4 feet away?.

    We used to have a Sony 'wall' of all the 32 inch models (there aren't so many now) with all fed from the same HD source - I couldn't have picked out which ones were Full HD and which were only HD Ready.
  • Bill ClintonBill Clinton Posts: 9,389
    Forum Member
    No such thing as a '720 set' (although there were a small number of VERY old sets that were 720) - it's an HD Ready set, and has 768 resolution.

    Even a Sony 1080 set gives little improvement over a 768 set - and then only if you're VERY close to it.

    To view HD on a 32 inch set you want to be about 5 feet away (or closer) - to get benefit from a 1080 set you would need to be probably only 3-4 feet away?.

    We used to have a Sony 'wall' of all the 32 inch models (there aren't so many now) with all fed from the same HD source - I couldn't have picked out which ones were Full HD and which were only HD Ready.

    I feel I could probably tell, but as it's coming tomorrow I haven't actually seen it on yet, I might well just think sod it, it'll do, as it's a Sony I have no doubt the picture's going to look very good anyway and it'll still make text on the PS3 actually readable!, but I should get what is advertised it's only fair, it not having a remote was made clear but it's poorer resolution was not. But you're going to be able to tell on PC Input, with less than the "1920 x 1080" I get on a monitor.
  • emptyboxemptybox Posts: 13,917
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I feel I could probably tell, but as it's coming tomorrow I haven't actually seen it on yet, I might well just think sod it, it'll do, as it's a Sony I have no doubt the picture's going to look very good anyway and it'll still make text on the PS3 actually readable!, but I should get what is advertised it's only fair, it not having a remote was made clear but it's poorer resolution was not. But you're going to be able to tell on PC Input, with less than the "1920 x 1080" I get on a monitor.

    Definitely for PC input it's important to get the right resolution. Specially if you are trying to 'clone' displays.
  • DianeDiane Posts: 1,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thanks everyone for your help, much appreciated.
  • The SackThe Sack Posts: 10,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    A note of caution given my recent experience, "HD Ready" might well mean that you are not getting a true HD TV. The resolution is likely to be somewhere about half way between SD and HD, 720p rather than 1080p. "HD Ready" is a highly miselading term and can land you with a TV that is not actually the full HD resolution of "1920 x 1080" but rather one that is "1366 x 768"!
    For perspective, regular SD resolution is "720 x576". All it is is that the TV can accept HDMI connections!

    I bought one on Ebay where the listing stated "1920 x 1080" but it turns out that the resolution might well actually be the lower "1366 x 768" one.

    http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2012/05/29/dont-buy-a-hd-ready-telly-thinking-its-high-definition-its-not/

    Look for "Full HD".
    Although as long as you are fully aware of this, a 720 TV is still an improvement over a regular SD, and Sky HD channels don't actually broadcast at the full 1080p resolution. They are 1080i.

    My 5 year old 720p plasma looks every bit as good as my 1080p LCD, the 1080 set looks a little sharper but sharpness isnt extra detail is it :)

    Blurays look beautiful on them both.
  • emptyboxemptybox Posts: 13,917
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Sack wrote: »
    My 5 year old 720p plasma looks every bit as good as my 1080p LCD, the 1080 set looks a little sharper but sharpness isnt extra detail is it :)

    Blurays look beautiful on them both.

    Sharpness may not be extra detail, but 1080 lines as opposed to 720 (768?) is extra detail. ;)
    (presuming a 1080p source)
  • SnrDevSnrDev Posts: 6,094
    Forum Member
    Diane wrote: »
    I receive my tv through Sky so do I have to get a new sky hd box and pay more monthly to Sky watch the tv in HD or can i do it cheaper by buying a converter box?

    Also if I'm buying a new tv do i need a HDMI cable and what does that do?

    All I have is a tv, dvd player and a sky+box if that helps.

    Thanks for any help
    Back to OP, if you have a Sky dish you can buy a Freesat HD TV and plug the sat lead straight into the tv, getting the handful of free HD channels available through Freesat, including the soon to arrive (next couple of months or so) BBC3/4 & CBBC/CBeebies. That's your easiest way to get HD. If you want HD through Sky you'd need the Entertainment pack (i think it's called now) which costs £27 and provides just 6 HD channels, or pay the extra fiver to get Entertainment Extra+ to include 49 HD channels.

    To get the HD picture off the blu-ray player any cheapo HDMI lead from Asda for example, a couple of quid, will do the job.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    SnrDev wrote: »
    If you want HD through Sky you'd need the Entertainment pack (i think it's called now) which costs £27 and provides just 6 HD channels, or pay the extra fiver to get Entertainment Extra+ to include 49 HD channels.

    Rather misleading? - you also get the exact same free HD channels on Sky as well (plus an extra one - 5HD) that you get on Freesat, for free as well.

    Freesat is essentially just an alternative EPG for the free channels 'on' Sky.
  • SnrDevSnrDev Posts: 6,094
    Forum Member
    Not misleading. I pointed out that a freesat tv will connect to the sat feed and provide those core FTA HD channels, which is the easiest way to get HD if a dish is already in place, but if op wants to keep Sky there's the base offering which also provides the FTA HD channels (plus all the other tat that Sky provide) or there's Extra+ for a lot more HD channels.

    It made sense to me. Sorry if you thought it didn't.
  • scottie55scottie55 Posts: 129
    Forum Member
    [QUOTE=Sky HD channels don't actually broadcast at the full 1080p resolution. They are 1080i.[/QUOTE]

    Not wishing to be pedantic, but aren't 1080i and 1080p the same resolution?
  • grahamlthompsongrahamlthompson Posts: 18,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    scottie55 wrote: »
    Not wishing to be pedantic, but aren't 1080i and 1080p the same resolution?

    Of course they are :eek:

    Amazing how the p makes people think it's somehow inferior.

    All satellite transmissions are now 1920 x 1080 pixels.

    Pretty well all satellite boxes are not capable of working with progressive content.

    Freeview boxes can use 1080p25 which delivers the same amount of data as 1080i50 as used by satellite.

    In a modern TV interlaced full-hd at 50 fields/sec will look near identical to progressive at 25fps, and identical if both fields of the interlaced transmission are derived from the same source.

    It's a con most like the poster you referred to think 1080p means 1080p at 50 frames/second. It does not, in respect of broadcast HD content, best is 25fps. Even Blu-ray is 1920 x 1080 at 24 fps. (The picture quality is down to the high bitrate that Blu-ray is capable of using)
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    scottie55 wrote: »
    Not wishing to be pedantic, but aren't 1080i and 1080p the same resolution?

    It depends. If not coming from a progressive source and weaving then 1080i will have lower resolution especially when there is a lot of movement. In worst case the vertical resolution can be as low as 540 though with a good de-interlacer it would not usually be this low in most of the picture.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Amazing how the p makes people think it's somehow inferior.

    Well it is inferior unless of course the TV recognises a progressive picture and then they are the same. The question is how much difference there will be and will people notice and I agree with you that in most cases they will not. It is a bit like the HD ready versus full HD debate.

    I would however had preferred much viewing to be in 720p50 rather than 1080i/25 especially for fast moving stuff like sport where the resolution of 720 can actually be higher than that of the 1080. The problem is that 1080 is a higher number than 720 and perception is everything.
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    bobcar wrote: »
    Well it is inferior unless of course the TV recognises a progressive picture and then they are the same. The question is how much difference there will be and will people notice and I agree with you that in most cases they will not. It is a bit like the HD ready versus full HD debate.

    I don't think anyone has ever been able to tell the difference in double-blind tests - people only knew Freeview were sometimes using 1080p25 because the OSD told them :D

    Your previous comment about "not coming from a progressive source" didn't really make much sense - as there wouldn't be any progressive version at all to compare, if the original source was interlaced.

    I would however had preferred much viewing to be in 720p50 rather than 1080i/25 especially for fast moving stuff like sport where the resolution of 720 can actually be higher than that of the 1080. The problem is that 1080 is a higher number than 720 and perception is everything.

    And the early tests the BBC did using 720p50 were a failure, with substantial numbers of viewers reporting nausea.

    The supposed 'better for sport' is probably more imagination than anything else anyway - while in theory you get more resolution on fast moving action, can you even see more resolution in such fast moving action?.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    Your previous comment about "not coming from a progressive source" didn't really make much sense - as there wouldn't be any progressive version at all to compare, if the original source was interlaced.

    I don't see why you don't understand this. Clearly I mean if the source was progressive (such as a film), obviously the if the original source was interlaced then the original source was not progressive.
    And the early tests the BBC did using 720p50 were a failure, with substantial numbers of viewers reporting nausea.

    Do you have a link for this? I've seen this quoted lots of time on here but never seen any evidence - that doesn't mean there is any evidence but I'd like to see it before I take it into account.
    The supposed 'better for sport' is probably more imagination than anything else anyway - while in theory you get more resolution on fast moving action, can you even see more resolution in such fast moving action?.

    Technically the results are better, how much better and whether people will notice the difference is as I said a different matter and subject to dispute. Interlaced HD for flat panels however should have been an unnecessary choice as there are no advantages and many disadvantages, just dealing with the problems like modern TVs can do is something that should not be necessary..
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    bobcar wrote: »
    Do you have a link for this? I've seen this quoted lots of time on here but never seen any evidence - that doesn't mean there is any evidence but I'd like to see it before I take it into account.

    I 'presume' it was reported on here way back when it happened, which was shortly before HD launched in the UK on Sky.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I 'presume' it was reported on here way back when it happened, which was shortly before HD launched in the UK on Sky.

    Yes but I've Googled and can't find any proper reference to 720p causing a problem and 1080i being better. All I could find was this http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.digitalspy.co.uk%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D65145688&ei=EyZqUozlOubw0gW--YDwAg&usg=AFQjCNF4yNsLgMGaTdHgC_hbfOJgHK98Sg that some people experienced nausea when viewing sports as the picture went from sharp to blurred during scanning - they recommended a faster scan rate rather than higher resolution which would fit with 720p50 being better than 1080i/25 though faster than 50 fps would be better.
Sign In or Register to comment.