anywhere to find out if, the new epg is available for my machine, or more so
when it will be. Tried the manual update but still got the old epg. Sky
say I have to put my machine on standby at night and it will download 'when
available'. They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when
it might be.

TIA

"They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when it
might be."

And YOU haven't said what type of receiver you are using. Type
(HD, Sky+, or standard Sky), Manufacturer, Version (from System
Details).

The new EPG is only available for HD receivers.

The advice from Sky is only partially correct. The receiver
should download upgrades, as soon as they become available - but
not necessarily overnight. Furthermore, you don't need to leave
the box in standby to receive and install updates.



"iz0nlee" wrote in message
news
anywhere to find out if, the new epg is available for my
machine, or more so when it will be. Tried the manual update
but still got the old epg. Sky say I have to put my machine on
standby at night and it will download 'when available'. They
don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when it
might be.

TIA

Sorry, should have said, Amstrad DRX780UK.

TIA
"Bob Lucas" wrote in message
...
"They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when it might
be."

And YOU haven't said what type of receiver you are using. Type (HD, Sky+,
or standard Sky), Manufacturer, Version (from System Details).

The new EPG is only available for HD receivers.

The advice from Sky is only partially correct. The receiver should
download upgrades, as soon as they become available - but not necessarily
overnight. Furthermore, you don't need to leave the box in standby to
receive and install updates.



"iz0nlee" wrote in message
news
anywhere to find out if, the new epg is available for my machine, or more
so when it will be. Tried the manual update but still got the old epg.
Sky say I have to put my machine on standby at night and it will download
'when available'. They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be,
or when it might be.

TIA

Sorry, should have said, Amstrad DRX780UK.

TIA

The rollout of new firmware and EPG upgrades is specific to the
receiver model and the version number. Consequently, different
types of receiver receive upgrades at different times. If you
quote the version number (from the system details screen), other
contributors with the same version may be able to tell you
whether they have received the new EPG.

However, there seems to be a problem with roll-out of the new EPG
for Amstrad receivers. You will find further information at
http://www.avforums.com/forums/sky-h...d-new-epg.html.

Quite apart from the EPG issue (which prevents reception of ITV
HD channel), other posts on that forum have commented upon poor
quality SD pictures from the Amstrad DRX780UK. If your receiver
is still within the warranty period and your SD channels are poor
quality, report that as a fault and try to get a replacement
receiver from a different manufacturer.

Pace receivers have a good reputation. Thomson used to have
major quality problems (which may have been resolved). Don't
know about Samsung.



"iz0nlee" wrote in message
om...
Sorry, should have said, Amstrad DRX780UK.

TIA
"Bob Lucas" wrote in message
...
"They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when
it might be."

And YOU haven't said what type of receiver you are using.
Type (HD, Sky+, or standard Sky), Manufacturer, Version (from
System Details).

The new EPG is only available for HD receivers.

The advice from Sky is only partially correct. The receiver
should download upgrades, as soon as they become available -
but not necessarily overnight. Furthermore, you don't need to
leave the box in standby to receive and install updates.



"iz0nlee" wrote in message
news
anywhere to find out if, the new epg is available for my
machine, or more so when it will be. Tried the manual update
but still got the old epg. Sky say I have to put my machine
on standby at night and it will download 'when available'.
They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when
it might be.

TIA

Sorry, should have said, Amstrad DRX780UK.

TIA

I'd say the SD picture is slighly better than my old sky+ box, the biggest
difference is the reduction of volume(via the HDMI cable, I dont have a home
theatre system to run the 5.1 through) I dont see any great difference in
the HD picture, maybe when I get used to it.
full details of the box a
Amstrad : Mdl780-056, version: 4F30A3, operating system: 1.32A01, EPG
software :5.10.kHD
Overall I'm underwhelmed.
"Bob Lucas" wrote in message
...
The rollout of new firmware and EPG upgrades is specific to the receiver
model and the version number. Consequently, different types of receiver
receive upgrades at different times. If you quote the version number
(from the system details screen), other contributors with the same version
may be able to tell you whether they have received the new EPG.

However, there seems to be a problem with roll-out of the new EPG for
Amstrad receivers. You will find further information at
http://www.avforums.com/forums/sky-h...d-new-epg.html.

Quite apart from the EPG issue (which prevents reception of ITV HD
channel), other posts on that forum have commented upon poor quality SD
pictures from the Amstrad DRX780UK. If your receiver is still within the
warranty period and your SD channels are poor quality, report that as a
fault and try to get a replacement receiver from a different manufacturer.

Pace receivers have a good reputation. Thomson used to have major quality
problems (which may have been resolved). Don't know about Samsung.



"iz0nlee" wrote in message
om...
Sorry, should have said, Amstrad DRX780UK.

TIA
"Bob Lucas" wrote in message
...
"They don't say when that will be, if it ever will be, or when it might
be."

And YOU haven't said what type of receiver you are using. Type (HD,
Sky+, or standard Sky), Manufacturer, Version (from System Details).

The new EPG is only available for HD receivers.

The advice from Sky is only partially correct. The receiver should
download upgrades, as soon as they become available - but not
necessarily overnight. Furthermore, you don't need to leave the box in
standby to receive and install updates.



"iz0nlee" wrote in message
news anywhere to find out if, the new epg is available for my machine, or
more so when it will be. Tried the manual update but still got the old
epg. Sky say I have to put my machine on standby at night and it will
download 'when available'. They don't say when that will be, if it ever
will be, or when it might be.

TIA

Sorry, should have said, Amstrad DRX780UK.

TIA

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:32:38 GMT, "iz0nlee"
wrote:

I'd say the SD picture is slighly better than my old sky+ box, the biggest
difference is the reduction of volume(via the HDMI cable, I dont have a home
theatre system to run the 5.1 through) I dont see any great difference in
the HD picture, maybe when I get used to it.
full details of the box a
Amstrad : Mdl780-056, version: 4F30A3, operating system: 1.32A01, EPG
software :5.10.kHD
Overall I'm underwhelmed.

I don't mean to be patronising, and I'm only trying to help. But the
difference between an SD channel and an HD channel that is showing HD
content is nothing short of astonishing. I was blown away when I first
saw it.

You said you "dont see any great difference" - so either the way you
came to that conclusion is very different from mine and most other
people's, or something is wrong. So, the question is, what could be
wrong?

Do you have good eyesight? Can you see the difference on those
demonstration videos they show in stores where half the screen is
supposedly SD and half the screen supposedly HD?

How big is your TV? (the bigger the TV the more obvious the difference
is as SD looks terrible on huge screens)

Are you definitely watching through HDMI and not Scart or component or
anything else?

Are you definitely watching an HD channel that is actually showing HD
content? (Just because it's an HD channel doesn't mean the show was
recorded or being broadcast in HD. See the info for the program, if it
has HD in the list of letters at the top right of then it is HD, if
not, it's SD).

Is your TV capable of 1080i? If so, have you set the resolution output
setting to Automatic or 1080i?

--
Vincent

"Vincent" wrote in message
...

Is your TV capable of 1080i? If so, have you set the resolution output
setting to Automatic or 1080i?

Distance away from the screen is also an issue. We sit a way away from our
37" TV and you can't see the difference between HD and SD.

Ian

"Vincent" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:32:38 GMT, "iz0nlee"
wrote:

Overall I'm underwhelmed.

I don't mean to be patronising, and I'm only trying to help. But the
difference between an SD channel and an HD channel that is showing HD
content is nothing short of astonishing. I was blown away when I first
saw it.

You said you "dont see any great difference" - so either the way you
came to that conclusion is very different from mine and most other
people's, or something is wrong. So, the question is, what could be
wrong?

You fell for the hype? :-)

There is a difference alright, especially in background detail. But it's
certainly not worth all the people wetting their knickers over HD and
paying the extra money to Sky.

Certain types of people just have the latest 'thing' whatever it is... and
that's fine. It'll be something different in a few years time. 3-D maybe?
But for me, HD is way over rated.

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:52:48 -0000, "Stephen O'Connell"
wrote:

"Vincent" wrote in message
.. .
I don't mean to be patronising, and I'm only trying to help. But the
difference between an SD channel and an HD channel that is showing HD
content is nothing short of astonishing. I was blown away when I first
saw it.

You said you "dont see any great difference" - so either the way you
came to that conclusion is very different from mine and most other
people's, or something is wrong. So, the question is, what could be
wrong?

You fell for the hype? :-)

I disagree. I didn't fall for any hype. I was wowed by HD not from any
hype or advertisement, but by seeing it first hand at a neighbor's
house, where the picture quality was so astounding that it stopped me
in my tracks. I didn't even know it was Sky HD until I asked, and I'd
barely even heard of Sky HD at that point in time.

There is a difference alright, especially in background detail. But it's
certainly not worth all the people wetting their knickers over HD and
paying the extra money to Sky.

For me, I find HD so much better than SD that I find it uncomfortable
watching SD content these days. The difference is obvious. But then I
have perfect eyesight, and I sit about 3 meters away from a 46" TV.

When I look at an SD picture, I can clearly see MPEG artifacts,
pixelisation around edges, terrible background smearing, and
horizontal pans just completely kill the picture quality. HD looks
almost real to me. I struggle to find any flaws.

Picture quality aside, 5.1 Dolby Digital is probably more important to
me than HD. The difference is also amazing. I know you can get DD on
standard Sky, but you're talking (as far as I know) the movie
channels, HD channels showing HD content always has it.

Certain types of people just have the latest 'thing' whatever it is... and
that's fine. It'll be something different in a few years time. 3-D maybe?
But for me, HD is way over rated.

I guess it depends on a number of factors, but for me HD makes a big
difference. It didn't cost me any more to get HD as there was little
choice of SD TVs available. All 36" TVs and above seemed to be HD. I
wanted the Sky HD box initially because it had the bigger hard drive,
so I didn't pay anything for HD there either. My subscription would
have gone up by £10 a month whether I got Sky+ or Sky HD. Again - no
extra cost to me.

3D - absolutely. I won't be getting that any time soon though - my 2D
TV is only a few months old. Will I get it in a few years when I get a
new TV? Maybe... it depends if 3D TV actually looks good to me, how
many 3D channels there are, what shows are available in 3D, and how
expensive a 3D TV + Sky 3D is.

Compare that to the launch of HD 4 years ago. Within those 4 years we
now have 37 HD channels, showing a variety of content, and most of it
is now HD. You'd be hard pressed to find a new TV that isn't HD. It'll
be the same with 3D. In 5 years time I bet nearly every new TV will be
3D.

--
Vincent

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:24:48 +0000, Paul Martin
wrote:

In article ,
Vincent wrote:
When I look at an SD picture, I can clearly see MPEG artifacts,
pixelisation around edges, terrible background smearing, and
horizontal pans just completely kill the picture quality. HD looks
almost real to me. I struggle to find any flaws.

But if SD was sent using a decent bitrate using MPEG4, you'd probably
not have those artefacts either. A good channel (eg. BBC1 London) uses
about 3Mbps on average. Your HD channel will be using a minimum of
9Mbps, with a better compression CODEC.

Most of the problem I have with HD is due to the poor picture quality
(dithering, colourimetry) of all LCD sets. Showing SD pictures on the
same set, which by necessity have to be upscaled and deinterlaced, is
not a fair comparison.

I quite agree.

But on the same token, SD TV was designed to look good on way smaller
TVs. I mean MPEG codecs and use of around 4Mb/s for Sky Digital were
all decided about 15 years ago, and were first released to the public
in 1998 (I think). According to Google, the average size of a TV in
1997 (different year I know, but close) was 21". I don't know what the
average is now, but my TV is 46" - over twice as big. In order to have
my rear surround speakers actually behind me (instead of level with
the sofa) I have the sofa pulled into the middle of the room. This
means I'm about half the distance I used to be too. So... double the
screen size means you're using the same amount of (uncompressed)
information to fill 4x the screen area. I'm sat half the distance, so
that means my screen appears twice as big as it did previously.

This means that to see the same perceived quality, I need to have 16x
the amount of uncompressed data as I did with SD.

Although not entirely true as bitrate is not directly proportional to
quality, this would be similar to reducing the bitrate to from 4Mb/s
to 0.25Mb/s and watching it on the same TV at the same distance.

Indeed, that's what SD looks like to me on my TV - it looks like I'm
watching a really low bitrate.

HD looks perfect to me.

--
Vincent