Sky to transmit all its own HD channels in 1080i

[Bob Crabtree]

Sky has confirmed to HEXUS that all eight of its own HD channels will initially be transmitted at 1080i and that the Sky HD receiver box can down-convert this to the lower-resolution 720p HD format needed by many current owners of HD TV sets.

The company had originally said that it would broadcast some programmes in 1080i and others in 720p. However, Sky's adoption of 1080i doesn't mean that the HD channels that Sky transmits for other broadcasters will follow suit. It's possible that BBC in HD, Discovery HD, National Geographic HD and Artsworld HD will use 720p for some or all of their programmes. We'll try to find out the score, though, and report back.

More in this HEXUS.headline.

[5lab]

i dont think 1080p is on the standards, and additionally it is not necessarily good news that they have decided on 1080i - interlaced pictures contain artifacts which progressive misses - theres a reason every film is filmed with progressive scan..

[MSIC]

Damnit!!!
The one major feature i want from HD (well, ok, apart from higher resolution!) is to not have any sort of flickering effect that you get from current interlaced pictures.

Has anyone actually seen a 1080i picture on a HD set? Is there visible flickering?

[digit]

I don't see flickering when playing my 360 at 1080i. So i don't see what the fuss is about. Refresh is high enough on hdtv's i have found for there not to be flickering.

[5lab]

a hd crt would exibit flickering on 50i (if not 100hz). an lcd wont..

[directhex]

still, interlaced is a nice way of saying "half the framerate". i'd prefer a smoother progressive scan image

[nvening]

Well it matters more on what you are watching, what is lower bandwidth? If its 720p then what the hell are sky doing lol

[Nitestorm]

I thought 720p was better than 1080i for faster moving action, like sports? 1080p might not be an official standard in broadcasting, but read somewhere blu-ray DVDs will be in 1080p and 1080p capable HDTVs are on their way.

[taqies]

hooraaay.....DO we have to PAY extra for it???

[Skinleech]

hooraaay.....DO we have to PAY extra for it???

Yes. £300 for the HD box, £10 on top of your regular subscription for the HD service.

£600 in a year...

[directhex]

Well it matters more on what you are watching, what is lower bandwidth? If its 720p then what the hell are sky doing lol

720p is slightly lower bandwidth

[Nick F]

Yes. £300 for the HD box, £10 on top of your regular subscription for the HD service.

£600 in a year...

Expensive but worth it

[Funkstar]

Expensive but worth it

Depending on your point of view of course

[iranu]

I'm glad that sky have decided to go this way. There was alot of conjecture as to whether they would broadcast at 720p @ 50hz because this would affect people with 60hz plasmas having to do a conversion which would lead to jittering. I presume that the skybox will output both 1080i (and 720p at both 50 and 60hz.)

[Skinleech]

Depending on your point of view of course

Agreed! I don't fancy paying £600 for something I won't watch that often - I watch plenty films, but not much tv. I already have plenty HD films to keep me going until NTL offers a decent option at a decent price (though seeing as their SD service can be awful I really wonder how they can pipe HD to everyone that wants it).

I reckon having spent £1600 on the TV (plus an extra £275 for the stand) I don't need to spend any more cash for the time being...

[Bob Crabtree]

I'm glad that sky have decided to go this way. There was alot of conjecture as to whether they would broadcast at 720p @ 50hz because this would affect people with 60hz plasmas having to do a conversion which would lead to jittering. I presume that the skybox will output both 1080i (and 720p at both 50 and 60hz.)

I'll have now asked that question directly of Sky and will report back with any answer I get.

I had asked them for ALL available technical info about the box and transmissions and what you've read so far is everything that we were told.


Bob