SD Picture Quality Is Appalling! - Sky+ HD

Paddy C · 05-11-2009, 11:56

I have had 4 Sky+HD boxes now (the 5th is due this Saturday) and all of them have had a slightly suspect looking picture for SD channels (both on the old and new EPG). Seeing as my current box has died I got my old Humax HDCI-2000 and plugged it in to at least give me access to something until my new box arrives. The picture on SD channels is miles better than it is through a Sky+HD box. I honestly can't believe how much clearer and less blurred the picture looks. HD also looks fantastic through it. Has anyone else noticed that SD pictures through their Sky+HD are rubbish compared to their old Sky+? I have also tried the Sky+HD through SCART for SD channels, still rubbish looking. I honestly can't believe the difference!

vism · 05-11-2009, 12:19

The Thomsons are rubbish at SD, get a Pace, Samsung or Amstrad

chriscatt · 05-11-2009, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by vism

The Thomsons are rubbish at SD, get a Pace, Samsung or Amstrad

Hi, and I think that is a rubbish statement when the pq can largely depend upon your TV and the quality of broadcast, such as ITV. I have a Thomson and is is fine with all the other channels, very good infact with my Samsung...
Chris

bengunn · 05-11-2009, 12:31

My Samsung HD box gives a better SD picture than my old Sky + PVR1 box.

vism · 05-11-2009, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by chriscatt

Hi, and I think that is a rubbish statement when the pq can largely depend upon your TV and the quality of broadcast, such as ITV. I have a Thomson and is is fine with all the other channels, very good infact with my Samsung...
Chris

I've had 7 Thomsons, 2 Pace and 1 Samsung. The SD picture on the Thomsons is rubbish compared to the others...FACT

The channel is irrelevant, we're comparing boxes.

The Sack · 05-11-2009, 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by vism

The channel is irrelevant, we're comparing boxes.

The channel can only be irrelevant if they are all using the exact same bitrate.

vism · 05-11-2009, 12:51

Paddy, you didn't say what boxes you've had. If they were not Thomsons, you may need to look elsewhere for a solution, the TV maybe.

Bengunn is correct, SD is better than SKY+ on the Pace/Sumsung boxes and worse on the Thomsons.

vism · 05-11-2009, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sack

The channel can only be irrelevant if they are all using the exact same bitrate.

Yeah, but you're missing his point. He's saying all the SD channels look rubbish so the individual bitrate isn't the issue.

Of course some channels look better than others but put a Sammo and Thomson next to each other with the same channel and the Sammo will produce the better picture.

Gilbertoo · 05-11-2009, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by vism

I've had 7 Thomsons, 2 Pace and 1 Samsung. The SD picture on the Thomsons is rubbish compared to the others...FACT

The channel is irrelevant, we're comparing boxes.

Unless you're comparing like for like (i.e. exact same setup), your statement isn't fact, it's merely your opinion

vism · 05-11-2009, 13:03

Yawn, not up for a pointless argument.

Ragnarok · 05-11-2009, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sack

The channel can only be irrelevant if they are all using the exact same bitrate.

you mean compairable quality, bitrate does not always equal quality.

Eurosport (2) uk, and MUTV are argubly the highest bitrate channels on Sky yet are far from the greatest examples of good picture quality.

Resolution and the quality of the equipment used to produce the channels are just as if not more important!!!

Philjwade · 05-11-2009, 13:14

I'm very happy with the SD from my Tommo 004 2006 vintage, unmodified HD box connected to my Sony. Only exception is any OB by ITV, particularly footie which is well documented as being rubbish. I don't recall it being any better or worse than the Sky+ box it replaced. Not had any other make to compare it with, so can only compare it to terrestrial digital, and it is perfectly acceptable.
On a slightly different note, can anyone explain why, when BBC show a clip of football from an ITV broadcast game, the picture does not fit 16:9 correctly; does this indicate ITV are not even broadcasting in 16:9 format?

fmradiotuner1 · 05-11-2009, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by chriscatt

Hi, and I think that is a rubbish statement when the pq can largely depend upon your TV and the quality of broadcast, such as ITV. I have a Thomson and is is fine with all the other channels, very good infact with my Samsung...
Chris

It is I find SD channels as good as HD ones on my Toshiba 42x3030D.
One thing though is I have to have the box set to Auto and not 1080i or the picture is a lot worse.

Gilbertoo · 05-11-2009, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by vism

Yawn, not up for a pointless argument.

It's not pointless at all, you're not seeing the bigger picture.

There are many factors that go towards picture quality....and the make of box is simply one of them. How the box is set up, how the TV is set-up, what the make of TV is, what the viewing distance is, what cables are used, etc. etc. all contribute to the quality.

Point is this, try not to be so forceful with your opinion. If your viewing preference is to not use a Thompson box, that's fine...but don't assume that everyone elses set-up will offer the same result as yours.

306xsi · 05-11-2009, 15:52

I've got Samsung and Pace Hd boxes and before the New EPG I'd say PQ on the Samsung was better.
The PQ on the Samsung is now worse than the Pace since the new EPG update on on it last week.
Even the EPG interface itself is crisper more HD Like on the Pace. So today i've taken the sammy out swapped the hard drive and installed the Pace.
Neither HD box can display SD channels as good as my previous Pace Sky+ box.
I've always thought its a ploy by Sky to make HD look so much better than SD

Paddy C · 06-11-2009, 15:23

My TV is a Sony Bravia and my most recent STB (until it died that is) was a Samsung. Before that I had an Amstrad, Thompson and a Pace. The Pace box gave a good picture on SD but was still soft. All the others have gave crap SD picture quality. Just checking again at lunchtime it is astounding the difference between a generic Humax FTA receiver which gives a wonderful SD picture and then Sky's own STB produces such rubbish. Shame.

vism · 06-11-2009, 16:03

Your problem must be elsewhere then, there's no way all those different boxes are going to suffer the same issue.

The Humax is a quality product and may well give a better picture but having owned or seen far too many of these boxes, I can say this:

The Thomsons all produce a SD picture worse than Sky+ (never got to see the final release though, they might have been better)

The Samsung and Pace produce a SD picture the same or better as Sky+, not seen the Amstrad but I'm told it's good.

Paddy C · 06-11-2009, 16:09

Where else could it be? The Sky+HD box and the Humax are connected via the same satellite feed to the same TV with the same HDMI cable, the only difference is the STB which does the work. Considering that the Sky boxes underperform the Humax one at standard definition then the fault is quite clearly with the boxes themselves.

Considering tomorrows engineer visit will result in the 5th Sky+HD box I have had in less than 2 months, maybe suspect SD picture quality is certainly not the only fault with these receivers.

vism · 06-11-2009, 16:37

Maybe the Humax has raised your expectations too high. Let's face it, Sky exist in the bottom end of the market, they don't do quality.

Perhaps you are seeing the same picture as me but you expect more.

vism · 06-11-2009, 16:40

One other thing, is your box's resolution set to 1080i or auto?

StooMonster · 06-11-2009, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by chriscatt

Hi, and I think that is a rubbish statement

Nope, vism is correct.

Sky HD set-top-boxes forcefully deinterlace the broadcast 576i of SD channels to 576p, and even do this as part of the process of 'upscaling' to 1080i.

The Broadcom chip used in the Thomson Sky HD box is particularly bad at deinterlacing 576i into 576p and the subsequent results are sub-optimal.

For a simply test go to the Bloomberg channel and watch the scrolling tickers, Thomson cannot handle the "mixed mode" picture and goes horrible.

Forced 576p output is annoying, on my FreeSat HD boxes I have them set to AUTO which produces 1080i and 576i over HDMI which on a decent display (with good video processing chipset) gives a far superior picture to any of the Sky HD boxes and their SD output.

If Sky HD allowed output of 576i over HDMI as per FreeSat boxes, thus bypassing rubbish deinterlacing, the picture could be as good as FreeSat boxes' SD output.

StooMonster

Paddy C · 07-11-2009, 14:01

Well we got a replacement Pace+HD box (brand new) installed this morning at 8am and the SD picture is much better, thankfully. The engineer even changed over the power cable, HDMI cable and remote too. The first Pace+HD box we had was great for SD but through the Samsung, Thompson and Amstrad it has been horrible. Hopefully now our 5th box in 2 months will actually work this time, if it doesn't then sod it, I'm cancelling for good, I can't put up with these breaking boxes every 2 weeks. The amount of lost recordings and days on end when we have been left with no television will soon end, either because of a working box or by ditching Sky altogether.

05-11-2009, 11:56	#1
Paddy C Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,132	SD Picture Quality Is Appalling! I have had 4 Sky+HD boxes now (the 5th is due this Saturday) and all of them have had a slightly suspect looking picture for SD channels (both on the old and new EPG). Seeing as my current box has died I got my old Humax HDCI-2000 and plugged it in to at least give me access to something until my new box arrives. The picture on SD channels is miles better than it is through a Sky+HD box. I honestly can't believe how much clearer and less blurred the picture looks. HD also looks fantastic through it. Has anyone else noticed that SD pictures through their Sky+HD are rubbish compared to their old Sky+? I have also tried the Sky+HD through SCART for SD channels, still rubbish looking. I honestly can't believe the difference!

05-11-2009, 12:19	#2
vism Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leamington Spa Services: Sky+ HD (Samsung), Sky region 2 dish (60cm), Panasonic TH-42PX60 TV Posts: 255	The Thomsons are rubbish at SD, get a Pace, Samsung or Amstrad

05-11-2009, 12:31	#4
bengunn Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 139	My Samsung HD box gives a better SD picture than my old Sky + PVR1 box.

05-11-2009, 12:51	#7
vism Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leamington Spa Services: Sky+ HD (Samsung), Sky region 2 dish (60cm), Panasonic TH-42PX60 TV Posts: 255	Paddy, you didn't say what boxes you've had. If they were not Thomsons, you may need to look elsewhere for a solution, the TV maybe. Bengunn is correct, SD is better than SKY+ on the Pace/Sumsung boxes and worse on the Thomsons.

05-11-2009, 13:03	#10
vism Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leamington Spa Services: Sky+ HD (Samsung), Sky region 2 dish (60cm), Panasonic TH-42PX60 TV Posts: 255	Yawn, not up for a pointless argument.

05-11-2009, 13:14	#12
Philjwade Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brentwood, Essex Services: Sky HD, Sky+ MR, Sony KDL-40Z5500, BDP-S550, HT-IS100 Posts: 212	I'm very happy with the SD from my Tommo 004 2006 vintage, unmodified HD box connected to my Sony. Only exception is any OB by ITV, particularly footie which is well documented as being rubbish. I don't recall it being any better or worse than the Sky+ box it replaced. Not had any other make to compare it with, so can only compare it to terrestrial digital, and it is perfectly acceptable. On a slightly different note, can anyone explain why, when BBC show a clip of football from an ITV broadcast game, the picture does not fit 16:9 correctly; does this indicate ITV are not even broadcasting in 16:9 format?

05-11-2009, 15:52	#15
306xsi Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 52	I've got Samsung and Pace Hd boxes and before the New EPG I'd say PQ on the Samsung was better. The PQ on the Samsung is now worse than the Pace since the new EPG update on on it last week. Even the EPG interface itself is crisper more HD Like on the Pace. So today i've taken the sammy out swapped the hard drive and installed the Pace. Neither HD box can display SD channels as good as my previous Pace Sky+ box. I've always thought its a ploy by Sky to make HD look so much better than SD

06-11-2009, 15:23	#16
Paddy C Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,132	My TV is a Sony Bravia and my most recent STB (until it died that is) was a Samsung. Before that I had an Amstrad, Thompson and a Pace. The Pace box gave a good picture on SD but was still soft. All the others have gave crap SD picture quality. Just checking again at lunchtime it is astounding the difference between a generic Humax FTA receiver which gives a wonderful SD picture and then Sky's own STB produces such rubbish. Shame.

06-11-2009, 16:03	#17
vism Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leamington Spa Services: Sky+ HD (Samsung), Sky region 2 dish (60cm), Panasonic TH-42PX60 TV Posts: 255	Your problem must be elsewhere then, there's no way all those different boxes are going to suffer the same issue. The Humax is a quality product and may well give a better picture but having owned or seen far too many of these boxes, I can say this: The Thomsons all produce a SD picture worse than Sky+ (never got to see the final release though, they might have been better) The Samsung and Pace produce a SD picture the same or better as Sky+, not seen the Amstrad but I'm told it's good.

06-11-2009, 16:09	#18
Paddy C Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,132	Where else could it be? The Sky+HD box and the Humax are connected via the same satellite feed to the same TV with the same HDMI cable, the only difference is the STB which does the work. Considering that the Sky boxes underperform the Humax one at standard definition then the fault is quite clearly with the boxes themselves. Considering tomorrows engineer visit will result in the 5th Sky+HD box I have had in less than 2 months, maybe suspect SD picture quality is certainly not the only fault with these receivers.

06-11-2009, 16:37	#19
vism Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leamington Spa Services: Sky+ HD (Samsung), Sky region 2 dish (60cm), Panasonic TH-42PX60 TV Posts: 255	Maybe the Humax has raised your expectations too high. Let's face it, Sky exist in the bottom end of the market, they don't do quality. Perhaps you are seeing the same picture as me but you expect more.

06-11-2009, 16:40	#20
vism Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Leamington Spa Services: Sky+ HD (Samsung), Sky region 2 dish (60cm), Panasonic TH-42PX60 TV Posts: 255	One other thing, is your box's resolution set to 1080i or auto?

07-11-2009, 14:01	#22
Paddy C Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 7,132	Well we got a replacement Pace+HD box (brand new) installed this morning at 8am and the SD picture is much better, thankfully. The engineer even changed over the power cable, HDMI cable and remote too. The first Pace+HD box we had was great for SD but through the Samsung, Thompson and Amstrad it has been horrible. Hopefully now our 5th box in 2 months will actually work this time, if it doesn't then sod it, I'm cancelling for good, I can't put up with these breaking boxes every 2 weeks. The amount of lost recordings and days on end when we have been left with no television will soon end, either because of a working box or by ditching Sky altogether.