Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

HD Ready TV - help required


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21-10-2013, 18:25
Diane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 593

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
Diane is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 21-10-2013, 18:38
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 36,812
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).
Nigel Goodwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2013, 19:16
chrisjr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading
Posts: 20,355
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.
chrisjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 08:11
Chasing Shadows
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,943
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.
Chasing Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 12:30
Bill Clinton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SouthWirral 1986-2002 & 2004-?
Posts: 5,213
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/20...ition-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.
Bill Clinton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 12:34
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 36,812
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.
Nigel Goodwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 12:40
Bill Clinton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SouthWirral 1986-2002 & 2004-?
Posts: 5,213
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.
Bill Clinton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 12:53
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 36,812
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.
Nigel Goodwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 13:03
Bill Clinton
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SouthWirral 1986-2002 & 2004-?
Posts: 5,213
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.
Bill Clinton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 13:10
emptybox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 10,276
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.
emptybox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 16:22
Diane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 593
Thanks everyone for your help, much appreciated.
Diane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 16:32
The Sack
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: S6 WTID UTO FTB
Posts: 5,460
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/20...ition-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.
The Sack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-2013, 16:55
emptybox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 10,276
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)
emptybox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 13:01
SnrDev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,338
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.
SnrDev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 13:10
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 36,812
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.
Nigel Goodwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 15:47
SnrDev
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,338
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.
SnrDev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 20:07
scottie55
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 118
[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?
scottie55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 21:20
Diane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 593
Was thinking of one of these tv's , any ideas which would be the best one?

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...62697-pdt.html

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/tv-dvd-...98611-pdt.html
Diane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 21:28
grahamlthompson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 15,292
Not wishing to be pedantic, but aren't 1080i and 1080p the same resolution?
Of course they are

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)
grahamlthompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-10-2013, 21:32
grahamlthompson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 15,292
Without seeing the pictures impossible to say.
grahamlthompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 18:07
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,596
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 18:14
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,596
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.
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 18:41
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 36,812
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

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?.
Nigel Goodwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2013, 20:24
bobcar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 11,596

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..
bobcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 07:48
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 36,812
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.
Nigel Goodwin is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:23.