Sky Updated Epg
- Thread starter cyclops12
- Start date
Was just about to post there seems to be another update this week
My box went from R006.058.55.00P to R006.058.60.00P a couple of nights back
A couple of small issues were identified with 58.55 and 58.60 was sent out to all the STBs which had received 58.55. 58.60 was also rolled out to additional subscribers and DRX595 owners.
Quite... Its 1am I'm half.cut and miss clicked. Apologies
I would like to think they may start broadcasting blu ray quality pictures and audio, obviously optical can't make use of the higher audio stream!
I'm kidding myself though!
A specific technique has been used to embed the sound into the HDMI lead. The knowledge to do this wasn't around 5 years ago.
Normally people who had been shouting that it could not be done, as it required a hardware update, would have been correct. Unfortunately for them, it has been successfully completed and works very well.
Normally people who had been shouting that it could not be done, as it required a hardware update, would have been correct. Unfortunately for them, it has been successfully completed and works very well.
Yep
Why over-egg the pudding when 1080i is acceptable? They're a commercial outfit with shareholders to satisfy. Bandwidth costs money. It can either be used for channels and the advertising that that generates, or for extra PQ that only a tiny minority are bothered about.
As for HD audio.... I'll bet most viewers haven't got something DD compatible hooked up to their boxes, let alone TrueHD/DTS Master Audio.
If anything, I'd just like less MPEG compression artefacts rather than more resolution. Some of the channels are awful, especially when there's a lot of movement in the scene.
I think that you will find that bandwidth is more of an issue than people realise.
An article on thinkbroadband stated that HD Satellite transmissions use 25mb/s. I dread to think what 1080p would use There are currently many broadcasters only using SD. It would be nice to see them all switch to HD but many recently purchased TVs do not have HD tuners built in. Also there is not enough available bandwidth on the terrestrial frequencies.
For an interesting comparison, a 1080i film downloaded off the net will be about 8GB. A full 1080p version can get as large as 32GB. That is a large leap.
It is widely speculated that broadcasters will start broadcasting 4K in 2015, with 8K around 2020. These will demand even higher bandwidth.
An article on thinkbroadband stated that HD Satellite transmissions use 25mb/s. I dread to think what 1080p would use There are currently many broadcasters only using SD. It would be nice to see them all switch to HD but many recently purchased TVs do not have HD tuners built in. Also there is not enough available bandwidth on the terrestrial frequencies.
For an interesting comparison, a 1080i film downloaded off the net will be about 8GB. A full 1080p version can get as large as 32GB. That is a large leap.
It is widely speculated that broadcasters will start broadcasting 4K in 2015, with 8K around 2020. These will demand even higher bandwidth.
Yep
Why over-egg the pudding when 1080i is acceptable? They're a commercial outfit with shareholders to satisfy. Bandwidth costs money. It can either be used for channels and the advertising that that generates, or for extra PQ that only a tiny minority are bothered about.
As for HD audio.... I'll bet most viewers haven't got something DD compatible hooked up to their boxes, let alone TrueHD/DTS Master Audio.
If anything, I'd just like less MPEG compression artefacts rather than more resolution. Some of the channels are awful, especially when there's a lot of movement in the scene.
Some HD channels don't even use DD 5.1, SyFy is one of them and it's really disappointing. DD 5.1 sound quality sometimes isn't great either, I can't remember what I watched the other day but it kept suffering an annoying 'click' in one of the audio channels, drove me mental. Not the first time that's happened either.
The best way to tackle this would be for more people to send an email to the respective channels.
I did and just got a standardised response. I responded and got the same standard response back
.Kind of upsetting when you want to watch the revamped ST:TOS in HD knowing that the Blu-Rays are in full 5.1 Surround sound and they are broadcast in AC3.
That's simply not true. HDMI is a set standard. Either your hardware is capable or it's not and in this case clearly it is and always has been, therefore the people who were saying it would require a hardware update are totally incorrect, as this update has proven. Just because the software on the box couldn't do it - or more specifically the developers of said software couldn't figure it out and/or (probably more likely) the powers that be at Sky didn't care, is irrelevant
If Freeview can broadcast 1080p, so can Sky. There is more than enough bandwidth available. It's about cost, nothing more
Most satellite HD channels are 10Mb/s or less with only a few of the main ones like Sky 1 and Sports etc being more.
If they need bandwidth, they can feel free to turn off the crap roulette and chat/dating channels. I got bored the other afternoon and decided to see what channels were hiding in the higher numbers, and it's a place I wish I'd never ventured to. The one called "Chatbox" (I think it was 873) where they can call up and leave recorded messages makes the people on Jeremy Kyle look like MENSA candidates.
We will forever disagree on this and I am not in a position where I can provide all the evidence to support my side. Simply put, it is a software change within the latest firmware update and not hardware.
As for HDMI being a set standard, sorry but you really haven't got all the facts there.
HDMI has had several revisions since it was first set. I believe that Sky's Sky+ HD STBs were first created before v1.3 was published (22nd June 2006). Source: Wikipedia.
Dolby TrueHD was a part of the 1.3 standard. 3D over HDMI is a 1.4 standard. This was published on 28th May 2009.
Remember that it takes time to design and build the STBs. As such, the components would have been sourced long before the respective Sky+ HD STBs were produced.
If Freeview can broadcast 1080p, so can Sky. There is more than enough bandwidth available. It's about cost, nothing more
Most satellite HD channels are 10Mb/s or less with only a few of the main ones like Sky 1 and Sports etc being more.
Maybe Freeview can broadcast 1080p video quality. So too can the Satellite broadcasters. Both Freesat and Sky use the same group of satellites, so whilst you may be watching BBC1 HD on Sky, your neighbour will be watching the same transmission of BBC1 HD on their Freesat HD STB.
However neither Freeview, Freesat or Sky currently have any of the channels working at 1080p.
Finally, did you know that during the Olympics that the BBC Olympic HD channels were broadcast using a higher quality image than normal for their transmissions? This caused no end of problems for the Humax Foxsat HD STBs. This was resolved with an emergency update during the first week of the Olympics.
Yep, would just put the price of the subscription up if they got booted off.
Sky F1 HD is an average 18mbit ... so that would be 36mbit on 1080p.
It eats enough of my disk space as it stands. I don't relish the idea of it eating 25% of my drive for a race recording...
Sky F1 HD is an average 18mbit ... so that would be 36mbit on 1080p.
It eats enough of my disk space as it stands. I don't relish the idea of it eating 25% of my drive for a race recording...
It was a flippant remark, not to be taken too seriously. Though I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if they did disappear.