On 27/03/2008, Gareth Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Brian Butterworth wrote: > > On 27/03/2008, Paul Waring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: > > > I have no idea why Sky do this. Why on earth would I want to watch > > the SD > > > version of a channel if I can watch it in HD. > > > > I don't know exactly how the Sky system works, but perhaps you want to > > record it in SD to watch it on a TV which doesn't support HD? > > > I can't see the logic in that. If you have a HD box, you can replay the > HD content as SD. But why would you buy a HD box if you can't watch HD? > > > > > > I do it fairly regularly. If you are short on disk space there is no point > recording an upscaled SD programme as HD. Granted if the broadcaster using a > Snell and Wilcox box to do the deinterlace/upscale/reinterlace then > it should look much better than the same process done by the budget chipset > in the Sky HD receiver - or even the better chips (Faroujda etc.) you get in > screens and AV receivers these days. > > I'd rather not be forced into recording and watching in 1080i, > 576i deinterlaced to 576p looks better on my system than 576i upscaled to > 1080i. So I'd rather do that and save the disk space. >
Why would the BBC broadcast upscaled programming? That would be awful. -- > *Gareth Davis* | Production Systems Specialist > World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global > News Division > 8 http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ + 702NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B > 4PH > ** > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
