Home› Satellite› Sky
Click here to check out Digital Spy's Tech section for the latest news, updates, reviews and cheap deals.
Options

Recording SkyHD from SCART output to DVD recorder

LoobsterLoobster Posts: 11,680
Forum Member
✭✭
in Sky #1
Yes, yes, I know what you are going to say.

You can only record HD material to HD-capable Blu-Ray/HD-DVD recorders, which aren't on the market yet.

I know that. What I am basically asking is this: Are HD programmes able to be recorded through the SCART output of the Sky HD box to a DVD recorder. Is there any CP mechanism on the broadcast which disables some or all shows from being outputted through the SCART?

If I am going to splash out on HD, I want to make sure that I can archive my fave shows in the best resolution possible. I know that the SCART won't output in HD, but even with downscaling it should be a far superior picture to regular SD broadcasts through the SCART, right?

Has anyone tried this yet?

Comments

  • Options
    YansonYanson Posts: 244
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    It will work.

    Scart will always work because it is SD, component may not work if HDCP is implemented.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,579
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #3
    Yanson wrote:
    It will work.

    Scart will always work because it is SD, component may not work if HDCP is implemented.

    That is how I understand it - however has anyone tried it to find out if the quality is better than a straight SD recording?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 34
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    I have my SkyHD connected via Component, SCART and HDMI to be able to compare :-)

    Even via SCART, the new HD channels look better than SD channels.
  • Options
    Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,524
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    srhill wrote:
    That is how I understand it - however has anyone tried it to find out if the quality is better than a straight SD recording?

    It will be 'slightly' better, simply because the original source is better - but it's not a great difference.

    We tried side by side comparisons, identical TV's, one on Sky One, one on Sky One HD, both connected via SCART (and the HD program was only SD anyway). The HD one was noticably better - and, interestingly enough, time delayed from the SD channel on 106.
  • Options
    LoobsterLoobster Posts: 11,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    The question is how much better (in other words is it worth the money in itself - although of course that question is subjective).

    Is the artifacting noticeably lower on HD channels via SCART as opposed to the SD equivalent?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 808
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    Nigel Goodwin wrote:
    time delayed from the SD channel on 106.
    by how long?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 34
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    Is the artifacting noticeably lower on HD channels via SCART as opposed to the SD equivalent?

    With HD material on a HD channel with SCART it is very noticeable less artifacting than SD material on SD channel.

    Have not confirmed this with SD material on HD channel vs SD material on SD channel.
  • Options
    Nigel GoodwinNigel Goodwin Posts: 58,524
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #9
    mmace wrote:
    by how long?

    I didn't really take note, and my HD TV has gone now :(
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    mmace wrote:
    by how long?

    About 3 seconds ... I've just find out yesterday while watching The Simpsons at the evening ... ;)
  • Options
    LoobsterLoobster Posts: 11,680
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #11
    davotoula wrote:
    With HD material on a HD channel with SCART it is very noticeable less artifacting than SD material on SD channel.

    Have not confirmed this with SD material on HD channel vs SD material on SD channel.

    Thanks, good info.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,579
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #12
    Loobster wrote:
    Thanks, good info.

    Similarily if you watch a football match being simultaneously shown on sky SD and bbc1 (ie fa cup final) you will find that sky SD lags behind terrestial by a couple of seconds
  • Options
    YansonYanson Posts: 244
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    srhill wrote:
    Similarily if you watch a football match being simultaneously shown on sky SD and bbc1 (ie fa cup final) you will find that sky SD lags behind terrestial by a couple of seconds
    Yes, but Sky Sports doesn't lag behind the BBC/ITV satellite broadcst.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,579
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #14
    Yanson wrote:
    Yes, but Sky Sports doesn't lag behind the BBC/ITV satellite broadcst.

    Possibly not but it still lags behind terrestial as I stated
  • Options
    YansonYanson Posts: 244
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #15
    Point being that the whole satellite platform is behind terrestial, not just Sky Sports.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 23
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #16
    Watching the cricket on Sky Sports yesterday, i noticed the delay. Sky Sports HD was clearly 3 Secs behind Sky Sports 1, so much so I could turn onto HD go through the resoultion change/snow and hear the same commentary again.

    Is the extra processing/bandwidth required realy adding that much delay?
  • Options
    YansonYanson Posts: 244
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #17
    I don't get why it would add the delay, because it has to do it in realtime in any case.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 161
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #18
    Geostationary orbit is 22,000 miles at the equater, so at our latitude say 30,000 to the satellite (cant be bothered to work it out!). Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. So signal goes up, gets processed and retransmitted down, about 1/2 second in all. So where is the rest of the delay?
    Perhaps its transmitted twice up and down (outside broadcast)?
    I'm open to correction of course!
Sign In or Register to comment.