|
||||||||
1080p upscaling DVD player vs. 1080i Sky transmission |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,062
|
1080p upscaling DVD player vs. 1080i Sky transmission
...of course, there are other factors to consider, but in general, do you notice a difference between the two? I don't...which is why I'm pleased I haven't moved across to a blu-ray player just yet....(will do eventually though).
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,762
|
Depends.
Between SD channels upscaled by the Sky HD box and DVD's ..... no. Between true HD broadcasts and DVD's ...... yes. True HD is sharper. If you're not seeing it then you either need your eyes tested, are sitting too far from your TV, or have a crap setup. Put it this way, can you tell the difference between the graphics on an Xbox 360 and an original Xbox. Similar sort of comparison. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,062
|
Quote:
Depends.
Between SD channels upscaled by the Sky HD box and DVD's ..... no. Between true HD broadcasts and DVD's ...... yes. True HD is sharper. If you're not seeing it then you either need your eyes tested, are sitting too far from your TV, or have a crap setup. Put it this way, can you tell the difference between the graphics on an Xbox 360 and an original Xbox. Similar sort of comparison. It certainly does depend, but for films with many fast action sequences, I definitely see a slight improvement between an upscaled 1080p DVD and Sky HD's 1080i transmission. (I tested this with Die Hard: With a Vengence last night). |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
|
An issue for may is that the native HD source has more detail but that detail includes a lot of things such as grain, noise etc which are missing from the lower quality (well resolution) DVD and are obviously absent when upscaled.
The upscaling tends to give a smoother and softer picture so if that is what you are used to the vast majority of HD (barring a few reference quality movies) may fall short. I've played a DVD along side a SKY HD broadcast of a movie and I can always tell the difference, some HD movies are so far ahead in PQ it's embarrassing for the DVD but others I have preferred the softer/smoother look. I recently watched To Catch A Thief on DVD (PS3 upscale) and the SKY HD broadcast, the HD was far better but a little before that I watched Fantastic Voyage on both formats and the DVD upscaled had the edge. At the end of the day there is no huge need to get rid of DVD if you have a decent display and good scaling in the TV or the DVD player, Blu-ray is very good but it has a wide range of quality simply due to the higher demand it makes of source material. As for broadcast HD then the case for that I believe is much stronger if only because of the crippled SD digital broadcasts on all platforms. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southern England
Posts: 1,114
|
Quote:
Had my eyes tested two weeks ago....good vision, no glasses required. I have a Samsung 40" Series 6 LCD panel and most definitely do not have a cr*p set up (used various test cards, HD test cards, etc.)...I sit between 2m - 3m from the TV, depending on if I sit on the sofa or not...3m is better for SD broadcasts...
It certainly does depend, but for films with many fast action sequences, I definitely see a slight improvement between an upscaled 1080p DVD and Sky HD's 1080i transmission. (I tested this with Die Hard: With a Vengence last night). If there is no difference then the setup is wrong It doesnt matter how good the upscaling is -genuine HD towers over it in quality If you are comparing dvd with Sky's SD upscaling then the dvd is better - mainly due to the cut price cockup low bitrates present on all digital tv. DVD's often use double the bitrate |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,727
|
Quote:
...which is why I'm pleased I haven't moved across to a blu-ray player just yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,762
|
Quote:
Woah, steady on there. Just because low bitrate over-compressed Sky HD might not look much better than DVD, doesn't mean blu-ray isn't better. Cos it is. Much better.
I meant to make that point as well. Bluray is a step up again from Sky HD. (Assuming it's well authored/encoded - not sure what the terminology is with bluray - when it's put on bluray .... some are pretty poorly cobbled together by all accounts, same as with DVD.) Although, as I already mentioned, proper HD stuff on Sky is already a noticeable step up from upscaled stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,794
|
Quote:
Although, as I already mentioned, proper HD stuff on Sky is already a noticeable step up from upscaled stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,762
|
Quote:
Sky HD gives you HD
I meant the (proper) HD channels on Sky are a step up from the upscaled SD ones which the HD box also outputs. Even then, there is a vast difference in quality between upscaled SD channels depending on their original broadcast quality, country of origin, etc etc ..... |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,710
|
Quote:
...of course, there are other factors to consider, but in general, do you notice a difference between the two? I don't...which is why I'm pleased I haven't moved across to a blu-ray player just yet....(will do eventually though).
If you cant tell the difference between upscaled SD and a HD source - then I would check your setup. Are you using a HDMI cable? |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,062
|
I must reiterate the topic, 1080p upscaling DVD player vs. 1080i Sky HD transmission. I’m not simply stating that any upscaling DVD player or film will offer the same results as a Sky HD or Blu-ray transmission. I’ve already conceded that there are other factors to consider, but sticking with my fast action example, I’ve seen very favourable results when comparing progressive transmissions (albeit upscaled) against interlaced Sky HD transmissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,710
|
Quote:
I must reiterate the topic, 1080p upscaling DVD player vs. 1080i Sky HD transmission. I’m not simply stating that any upscaling DVD player or film will offer the same results as a Sky HD or Blu-ray transmission. I’ve already conceded that there are other factors to consider, but sticking with my fast action example, I’ve seen very favourable results when comparing progressive transmissions (albeit upscaled) against interlaced Sky HD transmissions.
In terms of 1080p vs 1080i - with decent kit you shouldnt really be able to see a difference as the resolution is the same. See this website for an explaination as to why: http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,762
|
Quote:
In terms of 1080p vs 1080i - with decent kit you shouldnt really be able to see a difference as the resolution is the same.
You may notice a slight difference in fast moving areas of the screen, but on more high end TV's, even that isn't that noticeable. If you claim you can see a difference in the clarity of image between the two then sorry, but you're talking mince! |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 11,997
|
Quote:
Precisely.
You may notice a slight difference in fast moving areas of the screen, but on more high end TV's, even that isn't that noticeable. If you claim you can see a difference in the clarity of image between the two then sorry, but you're talking mince! |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,710
|
Quote:
Everything else being equal, that would be the case, but currently 1080i broadcasts have much lower bitrates than Blu-ray, and are usually transmitted at 1440 x 1080 resolution rather than 1920 x 1080, so contain less horizontal detail.
Although there is potentially more detail in the 1080i picture - the higher compression rate means that there will be a greater number of distracting image artifacts which could make any performance gains negligible. If you want a true HD experience - the only way is blu-ray. Even 1080p downloads dont look as good as blu-ray due to the higher compression ratio used to make them manageable. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
|
Quote:
Everything else being equal, that would be the case, but currently 1080i broadcasts have much lower bitrates than Blu-ray, and are usually transmitted at 1440 x 1080 resolution rather than 1920 x 1080, so contain less horizontal detail.
Yep but considering the quality that SKY and ITV can get out of the latest encoders the notion Blu-ray needs upto 40mbps is laughable, it really is ![]() There my be an argument that over the top bitrates are not a result of simply having too much capacity to use but a decision to make Blu out of the box suitable for cinema size screens where as broadcast HD is meant for nothing more than domestic flat panels and average sized projectors. I believe only 3 out of the current 30ish HD channels use 1440*1080, the rest are 1920*1080 resolution. The benefit of SKY broadcasting movies (and some other content) at 1080p/25 means as long as you have a half decent TV that can identify and de-interlace the source correctly then no practical difference in terms of progressive material, the frame rate issues remain of course
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
|
Quote:
Although there is potentially more detail in the 1080i picture - the higher compression rate means that there will be a greater number of distracting image artifacts which could make any performance gains negligible. In reality though the current UK HD broadcasts hold up very well and SKY and ITV are really showing what a modern H.264 encoder can do. I am by no means saying that there isn't going to be the huge potential for PQ differences when the same content is encoded at different bitrates but it's more that the range of domestic display tech and screen sizes doesn't even come close to making the difference that significant for the mainstream market, for the AV enthusiast well that's different ![]() Quote:
If you want a true HD experience - the only way is blu-ray. Even 1080p downloads dont look as good as blu-ray due to the higher compression ratio used to make them manageable.
Agreed but even then the master used makes far more of an impact on the final image that the encoding of the movie given the experience the studios now have. A full rip of a Blu-ray is identical but obviously depending upon how you get that data to the screen may impact on the final image but yes any re-encoding reduces the picture quality. Again depending upon the users setup it may make no significant difference and that ultimately is why DVD is still very popular and the discussion about why get rid of good upscaled DVD sources to buy the more expensive Blu format remain
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scottish Borders
Posts: 11,997
|
Quote:
Yep but considering the quality that SKY and ITV can get out of the latest encoders the notion Blu-ray needs upto 40mbps is laughable, it really is
![]() There my be an argument that over the top bitrates are not a result of simply having too much capacity to use but a decision to make Blu out of the box suitable for cinema size screens where as broadcast HD is meant for nothing more than domestic flat panels and average sized projectors. I believe only 3 out of the current 30ish HD channels use 1440*1080, the rest are 1920*1080 resolution. The benefit of SKY broadcasting movies (and some other content) at 1080p/25 means as long as you have a half decent TV that can identify and de-interlace the source correctly then no practical difference in terms of progressive material, the frame rate issues remain of course ![]() I take your point about bitrate, because LuxeHD has the lowest bitrate of the 3, but unarguably the best picture quality. Perhaps it's down to the camera equipment used? I didn't know Sky broadcast 1080p? ![]() I'd been told on here that Sky broadcasts were all 1080i. Or is it that the box will only output 1080i? Daft if that's the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ilkeston
Posts: 18,075
|
Quote:
I take your point about bitrate, because LuxeHD has the lowest bitrate of the 3, but unarguably the best picture quality. Perhaps it's down to the camera equipment used? I didn't know Sky broadcast 1080p? ![]() I'd been told on here that Sky broadcasts were all 1080i. Or is it that the box will only output 1080i? Daft if that's the case. Yep they are the three, the rest are under the SKY banner using SKY encoders so are all 1920*1080. They broadcast at 1080i/50 however for movies and some content it is in effect 1080p/25 but the SKY+HD de-interlaces it back to 1080i/50. The plus point is that if the TV recognises the film de-interlacing then it can de-interlace perfectly giving you back the original 1080p/25 content. I'm not sure why SKY didn't equip the SKY+HD with a scaler that could output 1080p (it does only output upto 1080i) but I assume it was a cost issue or that at the time 1080i input only screens were in the vast majority. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,762
|
Quote:
Everything else being equal, that would be the case, but currently 1080i broadcasts have much lower bitrates than Blu-ray, and are usually transmitted at 1440 x 1080 resolution rather than 1920 x 1080, so contain less horizontal detail.
![]() But proper HD channel stuff still blows upscaled SD stuff out of the water! |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:14.




