Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 82832	2007-09-09 22:42:00	Sky Viewers may get freeview afterall	Hitech (9024)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
589681	2007-09-09 22:42:00	www.stuff.co.nz :p	Hitech (9024)
589682	2007-09-10 01:02:00	If they can set up the STB to switch to all Freeview channels with the high Freeview datarate it would be good but if its like Sky's current FTA channels with a low bitrate I don't want any of it..	paulw (1826)
589683	2007-09-10 01:17:00	Why are you so worried about the bitrate	Hitech (9024)
589684	2007-09-10 04:59:00	Why are you so worried about the bitrate Tried watching some of the Sky channels on a 46" LCD TV?? then you will see what's good and what's bad..	paulw (1826)
589685	2007-09-10 06:52:00	I have a 32" lcd tv and the piccy is fine how old is your tv i know that the newer tvs from last year onwards have been remarkedly improved to stop the problem you have.	Hitech (9024)
589686	2007-09-10 07:14:00	No new television no matter how expensive, or how big it is will make the horrible sky picture quality go away.	DarkCypher (11945)
589687	2007-09-10 07:28:00	Bull**** my piccy is fine i get sky through telstrclear and its as clear as matey. I suppose you are running a $4000 tv on $10 cables upgrade your cables this helps to dramatically improve the picture.	Hitech (9024)
589688	2007-09-10 08:52:00	yes because spending $300+ on component cables makes a difference. :rolleyes: The difference in quality between TV3 on freeview and Sky is amazing, I wouldn't go back to watching TV3 on sky.	DarkCypher (11945)
589689	2007-09-10 08:56:00	DarkCipher does have a point - even on a bog standard 21" CRT TV you can see compression artifacts (not noise!). Compression artifacts can only be caused by a low bitrate in a digital link (e.g. satellite to STB). Admittedly one does have to look hard, but on a screen with sufficient resolution it can only get more obvious. Analogue interference (from cables etc) shows as noise, not artifacts. HiTech: Are you aware that sky through TelstraClear is delivered via a (mostly optical) cable network, and not via the standard satellite service? It's quite possible that TC is transmitting at a much higher bitrate than sky does via the satellite; they have a lot more bandwidth available at a much lower cost.	Erayd (23)
589690	2007-09-10 09:45:00	No new television no matter how expensive, or how big it is will make the horrible sky picture quality go away. X2 I install big flat Screen TV's, it's apart of my job and SKY looks shiiiit on them most of the time. I agree with Bletch. I think that Freeview broadcasts a better picture than Sky, but I don't know this for absolute. It just looks better on some of the hook ups I've done. Sky does look better on CRT TVs, one reason is because Sky is broadcast in Interlace and CRTs natively display Interlaced signals. So no interpolation has to be done for Plasma or LCD screens. Still you can see some of the poor mpeg compression. SKY use to much mpeg compression IMHO. A TV with a Good strong VHF and UHF signal can look better than its digital cousin. RF has No compression or bandwidth restraints.- Compared to Sky. Sky is strange, I have hooked up peoples decoders with expensive high quality compenant leads, and in some cases it has improved the picture, But in a couple of recent cases it made the picture much worse. Strange In one instance it was on a 63" Samsung Plasma TV. It looked crap The composite signal was better. However could be a decoder problem, it was a brand new decoder thou- slim silver one. Thats right I think you probably get a much better picture on your Telstraclear, than you would if you had sky. I was reading about the Optus D1 satellite and it said that it can handle a huge amount of bandwidth, So Sky should lossen there belt and increase the bandwidth especially on the sports channels as this is where you notice it the most. Bring on HD TV I say. NZ is so far behind the rest of the developed nations.	radium (8645)
1 2