Regarding 4K upscaling from Sky HD Box...

TGITCTGITC Posts: 2,765
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Apparently, if I buy THIS TV my Sky HD Picture will be 'Upscaled' to better quality?

Am I correct in thinking this, or am I being mislead?

Thanks.

EDIT The reason I am posting this in the Sky forum, (As opposed to the tv technology one) is cause thats all I care about. The pic quality from my sky box - Not bothered about blue rays or 4K netflix etc - Just my sky HD :)
«1

Comments

  • Gavin_DGavin_D Posts: 2,004
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    TGITC wrote: »
    Apparently, if I buy THIS TV my Sky HD Picture will be 'Upscaled' to better quality?

    Am I correct in thinking this, or am I being mislead?

    Thanks.

    EDIT The reason I am posting this in the Sky forum, (As opposed to the tv technology one) is cause thats all I care about. The pic quality from my sky box - Not bothered about blue rays or 4K netflix etc - Just my sky HD :)

    Picture quality will be improved as it uses HDMI 2.0, of course not full 4K quality unless you use netflix but you should certainly see an improvement

    Personally I'd go for this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-UE40HU6900-inch-Smart-Built/dp/B00JWTVSQU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664083&sr=8-1&keywords=SAMSUNG+UE40HU6900
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    TGITC wrote: »
    Apparently, if I buy THIS TV my Sky HD Picture will be 'Upscaled' to better quality?

    Am I correct in thinking this, or am I being mislead?

    'Upscaling' simply means it's made to fit the screens resolution, it doesn't make it 4K, or anything like it - it 'may' make a little improvement, depending on the quality of the scaler in the TV. But in my experience, with Sony 4K sets next to normal Sony sets there's not really a worthwhile improvement.

    Hoping a 4K set will magically transform the pictures is just wishful thinking.
  • ds_readerds_reader Posts: 10,353
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gavin_D wrote: »
    Picture quality will be improved as it uses HDMI 2.0, of course not full 4K quality unless you use netflix but you should certainly see an improvement

    Personally I'd go for this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-UE40HU6900-inch-Smart-Built/dp/B00JWTVSQU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1413664083&sr=8-1&keywords=SAMSUNG+UE40HU6900

    Why ... that won't have the option of Now TV!
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    'Upscaling' simply means it's made to fit the screens resolution, it doesn't make it 4K, or anything like it - it 'may' make a little improvement, depending on the quality of the scaler in the TV. But in my experience, with Sony 4K sets next to normal Sony sets there's not really a worthwhile improvement.

    Hoping a 4K set will magically transform the pictures is just wishful thinking.
    Correct. "Upscaling" is one of the most annoying buzzwords because no-one really seems to understand what it means.

    Back in the CRT days, screens could display various resolutions natively (that is, without extra scaling). Flat panel technologies such as LCD, plasma, and OLED cannot do this. Thus, if you have a 1080p screen, everything it displays will be upscaled to 1080p. This could be done by an external device (e.g. upscaling DVD player), by the TV itself, or a combination of the two. Ideally, you want the device that is best at performing upscaling to be doing it. I bet there are a lot of people out there who bought upscaling DVD players a few years ago without actually investigating whether their TV's upscaling was good to begin with - letting the DVD player do the upscaling could be worse!

    If you have a 1080i signal (e.g. from a Sky box) displaying on a UHDTV with a 2160p resolution, the signal will be deinterlaced and scaled to 2160p. How well it is scaled can be wildly variant; some TVs are really bad at this, others are excellent. Saying that the picture "will be improved" is utter rubbish.

    Also, HDMI 2.0 apparently can't support UHD at frame rates higher than 60 fps. Buying a UHDTV now seems like an utter waste of time (unless you want a new TV anyway and it's a happy bonus, like with 3D) because when the UHD broadcasting specs are finalised, a lot of current UHD technology won't support it. Hopefully it'll be 2160p/120 with a much higher colour depth than HD has.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Correct. "Upscaling" is one of the most annoying buzzwords because no-one really seems to understand what it means.

    Back in the CRT days, screens could display various resolutions natively (that is, without extra scaling). Flat panel technologies such as LCD, plasma, and OLED cannot do this. Thus, if you have a 1080p screen, everything it displays will be upscaled to 1080p. This could be done by an external device (e.g. upscaling DVD player), by the TV itself, or a combination of the two. Ideally, you want the device that is best at performing upscaling to be doing it. I bet there are a lot of people out there who bought upscaling DVD players a few years ago without actually investigating whether their TV's upscaling was good to begin with - letting the DVD player do the upscaling could be worse!

    If you have a 1080i signal (e.g. from a Sky box) displaying on a UHDTV with a 2160p resolution, the signal will be deinterlaced and scaled to 2160p. How well it is scaled can be wildly variant; some TVs are really bad at this, others are excellent. Saying that the picture "will be improved" is utter rubbish.

    Also, HDMI 2.0 apparently can't support UHD at frame rates higher than 60 fps. Buying a UHDTV now seems like an utter waste of time (unless you want a new TV anyway and it's a happy bonus, like with 3D) because when the UHD broadcasting specs are finalised, a lot of current UHD technology won't support it. Hopefully it'll be 2160p/120 with a much higher colour depth than HD has.

    While it might not improve PQ quality going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is just doubling the pixles in each direction, so 1 becomes 2 vertically and horizontally ect Unlike 720x576 to 1920x1080, as thats an odd amount to scale.

    I do agree its best to wait until UHD/4K is finalised before buying, as Im sure there will be many unhappy people that will find that there shiny new UHD set in a few years wont do what they want it to do!
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lotrjw wrote: »
    While it might not improve PQ quality going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160 is just doubling the pixles in each direction, so 1 becomes 2 vertically and horizontally ect Unlike 720x576 to 1920x1080, as thats an odd amount to scale.

    I would be very surprised if that's all that's done in the upscaling.
  • DWA9ISDWA9IS Posts: 10,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bobcar wrote: »
    I would be very surprised if that's all that's done in the upscaling.

    That maybe, but I would hope a good TV or upscaler would just double the pixles each way going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but I guess each device would have its own way of doing things, according to what manufacture designed the product.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 544
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I have a samsung (2014) UHD and the upscaling is amazing. In addition all the gubbins are in an external box so if specs and codecs change you can upgrade
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lotrjw wrote: »
    That maybe, but I would hope a good TV or upscaler would just double the pixles each way going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but I guess each device would have its own way of doing things, according to what manufacture designed the product.

    I would hope a good upscaler (whether in the TV or not) would do a good deal more than just double the pixels each way. I would expect things like edge smoothing and other enhancements especially in an expensive 4K TV.
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lotrjw wrote: »
    That maybe, but I would hope a good TV or upscaler would just double the pixels each way going from 1920x1080 to 3840x2160, but I guess each device would have its own way of doing things, according to what manufacture designed the product.

    There are still numerous ways of upscaling exactly 2x for each axis. The most basic method, nearest neighbour, doesn't look that bad when it's an exact integer multiple (compared to non-integer where it looks horrible) but other methods still look better.

    The best software image "doubler" right now is probably NNEDI3. Hardware solutions may be better but judging by past experience, I would guess the ones used in UHDTVs are worse.
    I have a samsung (2014) UHD and the upscaling is amazing. In addition all the gubbins are in an external box so if specs and codecs change you can upgrade
    Can you expand on this? I don't understand how changes in frame rates or colour spaces could be incorporated in existing products. Even firmware updates would likely be useless since a lot of stuff in TVs is done in hardware chips.
  • simon194simon194 Posts: 1,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Can you expand on this? I don't understand how changes in frame rates or colour spaces could be incorporated in existing products. Even firmware updates would likely be useless since a lot of stuff in TVs is done in hardware chips.

    Have a look on Samsung's website and search for "UHD Smart Evolution Kit".
  • ktla5ktla5 Posts: 1,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Many say a 40" / 42" is too small for HD, although I don't see why, so is a 42" going to be much better for UHD ? no one has reallt said much about sizes, and even if a 'normal' living room would handle a giant size UHD TV !
  • Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,329
    Forum Member
    DragonQ wrote: »
    Can you expand on this? I don't understand how changes in frame rates or colour spaces could be incorporated in existing products. Even firmware updates would likely be useless since a lot of stuff in TVs is done in hardware chips.

    You're still just imagining such changes might ever take place :D

    While 'upgradeable' sets sounds nice in principle, in practice its VERY unlikely that such upgrades will be available for very long - and are also likely to be extremely expensive.

    But the Samsung idea is essentially replacing the main board, so pretty well everything except the screen and PSU - assuming the screen is capable of any imagined new rates/colours, then it 'could' be possible to upgrade (but I suspect it's pretty unlikely).
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    You're still just imagining such changes might ever take place :D

    While 'upgradeable' sets sounds nice in principle, in practice its VERY unlikely that such upgrades will be available for very long - and are also likely to be extremely expensive.

    But the Samsung idea is essentially replacing the main board, so pretty well everything except the screen and PSU - assuming the screen is capable of any imagined new rates/colours, then it 'could' be possible to upgrade (but I suspect it's pretty unlikely).

    The Samsung UHD evolution kit that's available now updates 2013 4k sets from HDMI 1.4 to HDMI 2.0 which has a higher frame rate, so it does look like their screens could well accept other changes in the future, if indeed there are any. The kits also includes HEVC, HDCP 2.2 support and the increase in bits per pixel (from 8 to 10), it's not cheap either at £400, but if you spent £4-5k on their first 4k sets then its probably worth it.
  • Lt. DangLt. Dang Posts: 292
    Forum Member
    If you are buying a 4K set purely to use it with Sky HD or any other 1080i source some might argue you're wasting your money? Unless you need a new TV anyway? Even then a good 1080p set might be a better bet right now?

    Regards,

    Lt. Dang
  • TGITCTGITC Posts: 2,765
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thanks to all for the advice so far :)
    Lt. Dang wrote: »
    If you are buying a 4K set purely to use it with Sky HD or any other 1080i source some might argue you're wasting your money? Unless you need a new TV anyway? Even then a good 1080p set might be a better bet right now?

    Regards,

    Lt. Dang

    What it is, is that I have a 22 inch 720 rez bravia thats about 5 years old. I'm looking to upgrade to a larger model, but can only fit a max of 42 inch into the space.

    I was looking at just a non 4K tv, but with the promise of a possible upscale, even if it only just makes the picture a bit better quality, I may as well go for the 4K as its near enough a better price than than some smaller non 4K tvs.

    That said, its not about the price really - Just about (Possibly) getting a better pic from a 4K... & It IS only for sky - Dont really need the smart side as I have full package on sky and can get my 'on demand' from that easily... No interest in Blu Ray or Gaming etc... :) Nor do I want to pay for 3D capability as I'll never use it :)
  • Lt. DangLt. Dang Posts: 292
    Forum Member
    Hmm... If I were in your position I would probably look for a 42" 1080p OLED TV? More pixels doesn't necessarily mean a better picture? But maybe better colour fidelity and greater contrast ratio form an OLED screen would give the improvement you're looking for with a 1080i source?

    Regards,

    Lt. Dang
  • Deacon1972Deacon1972 Posts: 8,171
    Forum Member
    Lt. Dang wrote: »
    Hmm... If I were in your position I would probably look for a 42" 1080p OLED TV? More pixels doesn't necessarily mean a better picture? But maybe better colour fidelity and greater contrast ratio form an OLED screen would give the improvement you're looking for with a 1080i source?

    Regards,

    Lt. Dang

    Not aware of any 42" OLED TV's, smallest screen is around the 55".

    I'd have to say LCD is about the only choice at that screen size.
  • derek39derek39 Posts: 256
    Forum Member
    It would be nice if Sky would give us a little update how things are getting on with
    4K-capable Sky+ box
    that will be with us in 2016. :confused:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 544
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think the peeps above have explained my TV better than I could !
  • mooxmoox Posts: 18,880
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    bet there are a lot of people out there who bought upscaling DVD players a few years ago without actually investigating whether their TV's upscaling was good to begin with - letting the DVD player do the upscaling could be worse.

    Although wouldn't there be an improvement regardless because upscaling players imply HDMI output, so there's no digital>analogue>digital conversion as there would be if you were feeding PAL or RGB to it.

    Like how DVI is better than VGA even if both are running at the same resolution.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    moox wrote: »
    Although wouldn't there be an improvement regardless because upscaling players imply HDMI output, so there's no digital>analogue>digital conversion as there would be if you were feeding PAL or RGB to it.

    For RGB there's very little loss in the D/A then A/D conversion (composite is very different and not good), certainly it is far less problematical than the upscaling which is difficult. Of course if using SCART then for films the big difference may be that the TV doesn't recognise a progressive image for films and tries an non weave de-interlace that will make a big difference whereas the DVD player can just read the progressive flag, this wouldn't apply for progressive over component.
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    simon194 wrote: »
    Have a look on Samsung's website and search for "UHD Smart Evolution Kit".
    Cheers, will do.
    You're still just imagining such changes might ever take place :D

    While 'upgradeable' sets sounds nice in principle, in practice its VERY unlikely that such upgrades will be available for very long - and are also likely to be extremely expensive.

    But the Samsung idea is essentially replacing the main board, so pretty well everything except the screen and PSU - assuming the screen is capable of any imagined new rates/colours, then it 'could' be possible to upgrade (but I suspect it's pretty unlikely).
    Well that's why I wasn't sure how it'd even be possible. I mean, let's assume the panel can show a certain colour space. If the UHD broadcast specs change the colour space used, then the best you can do is make the TV support such an input signal. It'd have to be converted to what the TV understands (usually done in hardware so potentially difficult) and even then you wouldn't see any benefit from the improved colour space. Just like how you can watch HD video on SDTVs...it's doable but what's the point?
    bobcar wrote: »
    For RGB there's very little loss in the D/A then A/D conversion (composite is very different and not good), certainly it is far less problematical than the upscaling which is difficult. Of course if using SCART then for films the big difference may be that the TV doesn't recognise a progressive image for films and tries an non weave de-interlace that will make a big difference whereas the DVD player can just read the progressive flag, this wouldn't apply for progressive over component.
    The lack of a progressive "flag" in the stream metadata wouldn't be a big deal since hardware post-processors (which do things like scaling and deinterlacing) should detect cadence simply by looking at the image data ("oh look there's no temporal motion between fields, time to apply weave"). This is exactly what happens now when 1080p/25 video is sent in a 1080i/25 stream on HDTV.

    Of course, older TVs are less likely to be this clever and most CRT TVs were interlaced by nature anyway so it wouldn't have helped back then.
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DragonQ wrote: »
    The lack of a progressive "flag" in the stream metadata wouldn't be a big deal since hardware post-processors (which do things like scaling and deinterlacing) should detect cadence simply by looking at the image data ("oh look there's no temporal motion between fields, time to apply weave"). This is exactly what happens now when 1080p/25 video is sent in a 1080i/25 stream on HDTV.
    .

    I know perfectly well what should happen but not all TVs do this, it used to be the case that most didn't though I suspect that has now changed. Note that in my post I said "may be that the TV doesn't recognise a progressive image".
  • DragonQDragonQ Posts: 4,807
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bobcar wrote: »
    I know perfectly well what should happen but not all TVs do this, it used to be the case that most didn't though I suspect that has now changed. Note that in my post I said "may be that the TV doesn't recognise a progressive image".
    Yeah.
Sign In or Register to comment.